natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, upon disclosure of the MET findings, GS submitted, within the binding deadlines to provide disclosure comments, evidence demonstrating that it is de facto and de jure not subject to an export sales obligation.
Vendar je ob razkritju ugotovitev glede TGO družba GS v zavezujočem roku predložila dokaze o tem, da za njo de facto in de jure ne velja izvozna obveznost.
Duly considering the changed circumstances in case of GS and the fact that the rejection of MET had only been based on GS failing criterion 1, it was decided to review the original decision and to award MET to GS.
Ob ustreznem upoštevanju spremenjenih okoliščin v primeru družbe GS in dejstva, da je bil TGO družbi GS zavrnjen le zaradi neizpolnitve merila 1, je bilo sklenjeno, da se prvotni sklep ponovno prouči in se družbi GS TGO odobri.
Some producers concerned by the MET rejection argued that the reference to sales restrictions in AoA did not lead to the MET rejection in other anti-dumping proceedings.
Nekateri proizvajalci, ki jim je bil TGO zavrnjen, so trdili, da sklic na omejitve prodaje iz statuta v drugih protidampinških postopkih ni privedel do zavrnitve TGO.
It should firstly be noted that the MET analysis is made case by case on the basis of the facts submitted and no such alleged contradiction to other recent MET analyses with a comparable set of facts exists.
Najprej je treba opomniti, da je analiza TGO izvedena na osnovi posameznega primera na podlagi predloženih dejstev in ne nasprotuje nedavnim analizam TGO, ki imajo podoben niz dejstev, kot se domneva.
On the contrary, in the case referred to, the exporting producer submitted in due time a changed version of its AoA which did not include sales restrictions and it demonstrated that it was de facto not subject to such sales restrictions.
Nasprotno pa je v zadevnem primeru proizvajalec izvoznik pravočasno predložil spremenjeno različico statuta, ki ni vključevala omejitev prodaje in s katero je bilo dokazano, da zanjo de facto niso veljale takšne omejitve prodaje.
Other parties claimed that the rejection of MET to Chinese shoe exporters was not in compliance with WTO rules, notably because exports from China are no longer subject to a state monopoly, as required by the second supplementary provision to Article VI paragraph 1 of Annex 1 to GATT 1994 as a condition for contracting parties to deviate from determining normal value on the basis of normal value data stemming from the export countries.
Druge stranke so trdile, da zavrnitev TGO kitajskim proizvajalcem čevljev ni bila v skladu s pravili STO, predvsem ker izvoz iz Kitajske ni bil več predmet državnega monopola, kot določa druga dodatna določba odstavka 1 člena VI Priloge 1 k GATT 1994 kot pogoj za pogodbenice, da lahko pri določitvi normalne vrednosti odstopajo od uporabe podatkov o normalni vrednosti držav izvoznic.
When the above mentioned supplementary note was introduced, the PRC, among other countries, was indeed considered to have a state monopoly on exports.
Pri uvedbi zgoraj navedene dodatne določbe se je poleg drugih držav tudi za LRK dejansko štelo, da izvaja državni monopol nad izvozom.
Since then consideration has been given to the economic reforms in China which have led to a different treatment of China in trade defence proceedings.
Od takrat so se upoštevale gospodarske reforme na Kitajskem, ki so privedle do drugačnega obravnavanja Kitajske v postopkih trgovinske zaščite.
Presently, Section 15 of China's Accession Protocol to the WTO makes specific provisions as to how Chinese exports should be treated in trade defence proceedings.
Sedaj je v oddelku 15 Protokola o pristopu Kitajske k STO podrobno določeno, kako je treba obravnavati kitajski izvoz v postopkih trgovinske zaščite.
The provisions laid down therein indeed allow WTO members to use ‘a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China … if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product’.
Določbe iz protokola članicam STO dejansko omogočajo uporabo „metodologije, ki ne temelji na strogi primerjavi z domačimi cenami ali stroški na Kitajskem […], če proizvajalci v postopku ne morejo jasno dokazati, da v industriji, ki proizvaja podobni izdelek, prevladujejo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva glede izdelave, proizvodnje in prodaje zadevnega izdelka“.
In the case of the other 11 companies part of the sample, it is noted that no new reasons were submitted in due time that would have been apt to alter the decision to reject MET to them.
V primeru drugih enajstih družb, ki so del vzorca, je treba opomniti, da niso bile pravočasno predložene nobene nove trditve, ki bi lahko spremenile sklep o zavrnitvi TGO za te družbe.
In this context it is in particular noted that the submission of changed AoA, no longer containing sales restrictions, of two sampled Chinese exporting producers only subsequent to definitive disclosure was made too late to be taken into consideration, since at that time insufficient time remained for verification in accordance with Article 16(1) of the basic Regulation.
V tem smislu je treba še zlasti opozoriti, da so bile trditve dveh kitajski vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov o spremenjenem statutu, ki ne vsebuje več omejitev prodaje, podane šele po dokončnih razkritjih, torej prepozno, da bi se še lahko upoštevale, saj takrat ni bilo več dovolj časa za preveritev v skladu s členom 16(1) osnovne uredbe.
In any event, however, the companies concerned failed to meet the MET standard not just because of sales restrictions (criterion 1).
V vsakem primeru pa zadevne družbe zahtev za TGO niso izpolnile tudi zaradi drugih razlogov, ne le zaradi omejitev prodaje (merilo 1).
The other comments of these companies were already addressed in recitals 69 to 77 of the provisional Regulation.
Druge pripombe teh družb so že bile obravnavane v uvodnih izjavah 69 do 77 začasne uredbe.
Consequently, the findings and conclusion contained therein are hereby confirmed and the decision to reject MET to the 11 companies is maintained.
Zato se ugotovitve in sklep iz teh uvodnih izjav potrdijo, sklep o zavrnitvi TGO enajstim družbam pa se ohrani.
MET determination regarding exporting producers in Vietnam
Določitev TGO v zvezi s proizvajalci izvozniki v Vietnamu
Following the imposition of provisional measures, seven of the Vietnamese exporting producers selected in the sample claimed that they should have been granted MET and reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted without providing sufficient new evidences.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov je sedem vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključenih v vzorec, trdilo, da bi jim moral biti odobren TGO, in ponovno poudarilo utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili prej, ne da bi zagotovili nove zadovoljive dokaze.
These comments were already addressed in recitals 78 to 90 of the provisional Regulation.
Te pripombe so bile obravnavane že v uvodnih izjavah 78 do 90 začasne uredbe.
Consequently, the findings set out in the aforesaid recitals of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed and the decision to reject MET to the eight companies is maintained.
Zato se ugotovitve iz zgoraj navedenih uvodnih izjav začasne uredbe potrdijo, sklep o zavrnitvi TGO osmim družbam pa se ohrani.
Two sampled Vietnamese exporting producers claimed that they should have been granted MET since the reasons used in order to grant MET to GS applied to them.
Dva vzorčena vietnamska proizvajalca izvoznika sta trdila, da jima bi moral biti TGO odobren, ker veljajo razlogi, zaradi katerih je bil TGO odobren družbi GS, tudi zanje.
According to their understanding they were not granted MET because of (i) the sales restrictions in the business license (‘BL’) and the AoA and (ii) the existence of a contract between a related firm and a 100 % State-owned firm.
Po njihovem razumevanju jim TGO ni bil odobren zaradi (i) omejitev prodaje v obrtnem dovoljenju in statutu ter (ii) obstoja pogodbe med povezano družbo in družbo, ki je v stoodstotni lasti države.
The companies submitted that such circumstances applied also to the Chinese exporting producer GS and therefore the determination with regard to them should have been identical to that of GS.
Družbi sta trdili, da veljajo takšne okoliščine tudi za kitajskega proizvajalca izvoznika GS in mora biti zato odločitev glede njiju enaka kot za GS.
It should be noted that, according to the explanations given in recitals 78 to 90 of the provisional Regulation, the two Vietnamese firms were not granted MET because they did not fulfil criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Treba je opomniti, da glede na pojasnila iz uvodnih izjav 78 do 90 začasne uredbe TGO vietnamskima družbama ni bil odobren, ker nista izpolnili meril 1, 2, in 3 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In this respect it is noted that these two firms hold investment licenses which imposed quantitative sales restrictions.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da vključujeta dovoljenji za naložbe teh dveh družb količinske omejitve prodaje.
These restrictions were not removed either during the IP or thereafter.
Te omejitve pa niso bile odpravljene niti v OP niti pozneje.
Furthermore, as it is explained under recital 89 of the provisional Regulation, the two companies did not provide an MET claim form for one of their related producers in Vietnam.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 89 začasne uredbe, družbi tudi nista predložili obrazca zahtevka za TGO za enega od njunih povezanih proizvajalcev v Vietnamu.
It was therefore not possible to establish that the group as a whole fulfils all the conditions for MET.
Zato ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali skupina kot celota izpolnjuje vse pogoje za TGO.
The fact that this related firm had a processing contract agreement with a State-owned company was not used in the MET determination since the Commission was not in a position to conclude on a non-submitted MET claim form.
Dejstvo, da je ta povezana družba podpisala pogodbo o predelavi z družbo v lasti države, se ni uporabilo pri določitvi TGO, saj se Komisija ni mogla odločiti na podlagi obrazca zahtevka za TGO, ki ni bil predložen.
It is therefore concluded that the actual situation referring to these two Vietnamese exporting producers has no similarity with GS.
Zato se sklene, da dejanski položaj, ki se nanaša na ta dva vietnamska proizvajalca izvoznika, ni podoben položaju družbe GS.
Hence the arguments put forward had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba navedene utemeljitve zavrniti.
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (‘IT’)
INDIVIDUALNA OBRAVNAVA („IO“)
IT regarding exporting producers in the PRC
IO v zvezi s proizvajalci izvozniki v LRK
Following the imposition of provisional measures, some of the Chinese exporting producers selected in the sample claimed that they should have been granted IT and reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted, without providing any new evidence in due time.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov so nekateri kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki, vključeni v vzorec, trdili, da jim mora biti odobren IO, in ponovno podali utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili prej, ne da bi pravočasno predložili nove dokaze.
In this context it is in particular noted that the submission of changed AoA, no longer containing sales restrictions, of two sampled Chinese exporting producers was only made subsequent to definitive disclosure.
V tem smislu je treba še zlasti opozoriti, da so bile trditve dveh kitajski vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov o spremenjenem statutu, ki ne vsebuje več omejitev prodaje, podane šele po dokončnem razkritju.
This was too late to be duly verified in accordance with Article 16(1) of the basic Regulation.
To je bilo prepozno za ustrezno preveritev v skladu s členom 16(1) osnovne uredbe.
Consequently, for reasons already stated in recital 94 of the provisional Regulation, these claims had to be rejected.
Zaradi razlogov, že navedenih v uvodni izjavi 94 začasne uredbe, je bilo treba te trditve zavrniti.
Other Chinese exporting producers claimed that the refusal to grant IT to Chinese exporting producers constituted a violation of Section 15 of the China-WTO Accession Protocol and respectively of Article 6(10) of the ADA.
Drugi kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da zavrnitev IO kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom pomeni kršitev oddelka 15 Protokola o pristopu Kitajske k STO in člena 6(10) Protidampinškega sporazuma.
This had to be rejected.
To je bilo treba zavrniti.
First of all the ADA is not directly applicable in the Community.
Prvič, Protidampinški sporazum se v Skupnosti neposredno ne uporablja.
Secondly, Article 6(10) ADA only sets out the general rule of exporters being allotted individual margins.
Drugič, člen 6(10) Protidampinškega sporazuma določa le splošno pravilo za izvoznike, ki jim je dodeljena individualna stopnja.
However, where non-market economy conditions apply, derogations from the general rule are equally provided by WTO law, e.g. by the second supplementary provision to Article VI paragraph 1 of Annex 1 to GATT 1994.
Kadar pa veljajo pogoji netržnega gospodarstva, zagotavljajo pravila STO odstopanja od splošnega pravila, tj. druga dodatna določba odstavka 1 člena VI Priloge 1 k GATT 1994.
The situation of Chinese exporters is indeed more specifically addressed by the China-WTO Accession Protocol.
Protokol o pristopu Kitajske k STO dejansko podrobneje obravnava položaj kitajskih izvoznikov.
However, no obligation to allot individual margins to exporting producers can be derived from Section 15 of that Protocol.
Vendar pa iz oddelka 15 navedenega protokola ni mogoče izpeljati nobene obveze glede dodelitve individualnih stopenj proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
For the same considerations, parties claimed that Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, setting out the rules on individual treatment is in conflict with WTO Law.
S to utemeljitvijo so stranke trdile, da je člen 9(5) osnovne uredbe, ki določa pravila o individualni obravnavi, v nasprotju s pravili STO.
This had to be rejected, not only because WTO rules are not directly applicable in the Community but also because they do not preclude the two step methodology of (i) MET and (ii) IT.
To je bilo treba zavrniti, ne samo, ker se pravila STO v Skupnosti ne uporabljajo neposredno, ampak tudi, ker ne izključujejo metodologije v dveh fazah za (i) TGO in (ii) IO.
Four Chinese exporters reiterated their claims on individual examination, as referred to in recital 7 of the provisional Regulation.
Štirje kitajski izvozniki so ponovno predložili svoje zahtevke za individualno preiskavo iz uvodne izjave 7 začasne uredbe.
It was argued that where a sample of 12 Chinese companies could be investigated it should be practicable to investigate four more.
Trdili so, da če je bilo možno preiskati vzorec dvanajstih kitajskih družb, bi bilo to lahko izvedljivo še za štiri.
However, for the reasons already stated in recital 64 of the provisional Regulation, these claims were rejected.
Vendar je bilo treba zaradi razlogov, navedenih že v uvodni izjavi 64 začasne uredbe, te trditve zavrniti.
Another exporting producer came forward to request IT after the imposition of provisional measures.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval IO po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov.
That producer had started operation after the end of the original IP.
Navedeni proizvajalec je s tem postopkom začel po koncu prvotnega OP.
For the same reason as aforementioned, an individual assessment of the merits of this company's claim could not be made.
Iz istega razloga, kot je bil naveden zgoraj, ni bilo mogoče individualno oceniti zahtevka te družbe.
Moreover, it was also found that its AoA contained an export obligation.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da je njegov statut vključeval izvozno obveznost.
In addition, it benefited from tax incentives dependent on its exports exceeding a certain proportion of its total sales.
Poleg tega je imel koristi od davčnih olajšav, ki so odvisne od tega ali njegov izvoz preseže določen delež njegove celotne prodaje.
In these circumstances, it would not have been possible, in any event, to grant IT to this company.
V teh okoliščinah v nobenem primeru ne bi bilo mogoče tej družbi odobriti IO.
IT regarding exporting producers in Vietnam
Določitev IO v zvezi s proizvajalci izvozniki v Vietnamu
Following the imposition of provisional measures, six of the Vietnamese exporting producers selected in the sample claimed that they should have been granted IT.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov je šest vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključenih v vzorec, trdilo, da bi jim moral biti odobren IO.
The companies which were not granted IT on the basis of Article 9(5)(a) of the basic Regulation, merely reiterated their claim that their export quantities are freely determined.
Družbe, ki jim IO ni bil odobren v skladu s členom 9(5)(a) osnovne uredbe, so ponovno poudarile, da se njihove izvozne količine določajo prosto.
It is recalled that their export sales quantities were fixed in the companies investment licenses and could therefore not be considered as freely determined by the companies since any deviation from the ratio stipulated in their investment license would require beforehand a modification of this latter which would need to be approved by the authorities.
Treba je opozoriti, da so bile njihove izvozne količine določene v dovoljenjih za naložbe družb in se zato ni moglo šteti, da družbe prosto določajo izvozne količine, saj bi vsako odstopanje od razmerja deležev, določenega v njihovih dovoljenjih za naložbe, najprej zahtevalo spremembo slednjega, kar bi morali odobriti organi oblasti.
Although these exporters claimed that the ratio is freely determined by the company on the basis of economic considerations, it is considered that there is no reason for an export ratio to be stipulated in an investment license thereby explicitly forbidding a company from selling part of its production on the domestic market.
Čeprav so ti izvozniki trdili, da razmerje prosto določi družba na podlagi gospodarskih kazalnikov, se šteje, da ni razloga za določitev razmerja izvoza v dovoljenju za poslovne naložbe, s katerim se družbi izrecno prepove prodaja dela njene proizvodnje na notranjem trgu.
In such circumstances, the company concerned is no longer free to decide whether at any time it prefers to sell more on the domestic market than the quantity allowed by its license, since it is subject to a preliminary agreement from the authorities.
V takih okoliščinah se zadevna družba ne more več prosto odločiti, ali lahko ob poljubnem času na notranjem trgu proda večjo količino izdelkov od količine, določene v dovoljenju, saj se mora o tem predhodno dogovoriti z organi oblasti.
One of the companies which was not granted IT on the basis of Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation claimed that the Commission Decision to reject IT was not sufficiently substantiated.
Ena od družb, ki ji IO v skladu s členom 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe ni bil odobren, je trdila, da sklep Komisije o zavrnitvi IO ni bil zadostno utemeljen.
However, this company is a 100 % State-owned company and consequently the majority of shares do not belong to private persons but to the State which also nominates the management.
Vendar pa je ta družba v stoodstotni lasti države, kar pomeni, da večina deležev ne pripada zasebnikom, ampak državi, ki tudi imenuje upravo.
In addition, this company was found to be related to a company which did not fulfil the requirements for MET nor IT.
Za to družbo je bilo tudi ugotovljeno, da je povezana z družbo, ki ni izpolnila zahtev za TGO in IO.
Given that if different duty rates were to be applied to these two related companies there would be a risk of circumvention of measures and given the consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies as a whole fulfils the conditions for MET or IT, it could therefore not be established that the group as a whole fulfils all the conditions for IT.
Ker bi v primeru uporabe različnih stopenj dajatve za ti dve družbi obstajalo tveganje izogibanja ukrepom in glede na ustaljeno prakso, da se prouči, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO ali IO, ni bilo mogoče določiti, da skupina kot celota izpolnjuje vse pogoje za IO.
Under these circumstances, the conclusions drawn in recital 97 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
V teh okoliščinah se sklepna ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave 97 začasne uredbe potrdi.
The two last companies did not provide any new evidence.
Zadnji dve družbi nista zagotovili nobenih novih dokazov.
Consequently, for the same reason as those explained in the recital 97 of the provisional Regulation, it was considered that the decision to reject IT to the eight Vietnamese companies should be maintained.
Iz istih razlogov, ki so navedeni v uvodni izjavi 97 začasne uredbe, se zato šteje, da je treba sklep o zavrnitvi IO osmim vietnamskim družbam ohraniti.
As regards IT claims by exporting producers not part of the sample, reference is made to the relevant paragraph above.
V zvezi z zahtevki za IO proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki niso del vzorca, se navaja sklic na ustrezen odstavek zgoraj.
Determination of the normal value for the exporting producer granted MET
Določitev normalne vrednosti za proizvajalca izvoznika, ki mu je bil TGO odobren
The normal value determination for the sole exporting producer granted MET should be based on the data it submitted on domestic sales and cost of production.
Določitev normalne vrednosti za edinega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki mu je bil TGO odobren, mora temeljiti na podatkih o domači prodaji in stroških proizvodnje, ki jih je družba predložila.
These data were verified at the premises of the company concerned.
Ti podatki so bili preverjeni v prostorih zadevne družbe.
As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission first established, that the exporting producer in question made no domestic sales during the investigation period.
Komisija je v zvezi z določitvijo normalne vrednosti najprej ugotovila, da zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik v obdobju preiskave ni prodajal na domačem trgu.
Therefore, normal value could not be established on the basis of the relevant exporting producer's domestic prices, as provided by Article 2(1), subparagraph 1, of the basic Regulation.
Zato normalne vrednost ni bilo mogoče določiti na podlagi cen na domačem trgu zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, kot je določeno v pododstavku 1 člena 2(1) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, another method had to be applied.
Skladno s tem je bilo treba uporabiti drugo metodo.
To that end, it was checked whether the prices of other sellers or producers in the PRC could be used pursuant to Article 2(1), subparagraph 2, of the basic Regulation.
V ta namen je bilo preverjeno, ali bi se lahko v skladu s pododstavkom 2 člena 2(1) osnovne uredbe uporabile cene drugih prodajalcev ali proizvajalcev v LRK.
However, no other exporting producer in the PRC had been awarded MET.
Vendar nobenemu drugemu proizvajalcu izvozniku v LRK TGO ni bil odobren.
Therefore, the use of domestic prices of such exporting producers was not possible.
Zato uporaba domačih cen takih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni bila mogoča.
Given that no domestic prices could be used to establish normal value, a constructed normal value had to be calculated based on the costs of the producer in question.
Glede na to, da za določitev normalne vrednosti ni bilo mogoče uporabiti nobenih domačih cen, je bilo treba konstruirano normalno vrednost izračunati na podlagi stroškov zadevnega proizvajalca.
Consequently, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing costs of the exported shoe model, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses and a reasonable margin of profit.
Zato je bila v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe normalna vrednost konstruirana tako, da se je proizvodnim stroškom izvoženih vrst čevljev dodal po potrebi prilagojen razumni znesek za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške („PSA-stroške“) ter primerna stopnja dobička.