natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission services also sent a market economy treatment (MET) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received the replies within the deadlines set for that purpose.
Službe Komisije so vložniku poslale tudi obrazec zahtevka za tržno-gospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“) in vprašalnik; odgovore so prejele v rokih, določenih v ta namen.
The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2004 to 31 December 2005 (the investigation period or IP).
Obdobje preiskave dampinga je zajelo obdobje od 1. oktobra 2004 do 31. decembra 2005 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The investigation revealed that the applicant started its production operations in October 2004, i.e. after the original investigation period and did not export the product concerned during that period.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je vložnik začel svojo proizvodno dejavnost oktobra 2004, tj. po prvotnem obdobju preiskave, in v navedenem obdobju ni izvažal zadevnega izdelka.
It was therefore concluded that the applicant fulfilled the requirement of the first sentence of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da je vložnik izpolnil zahteve iz prvega stavka člena 11(4) osnovne uredbe.
However, it was also found that the applicant was related to a partly State-owned Chinese producer which was producing the product concerned during the original investigation period, but which did not cooperate at that time.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno tudi, da je bil vložnik povezan s kitajskim proizvajalcem, ki je bil delno v lasti države in je v prvotnem obdobju preiskave proizvajal zadevni izdelek, vendar takrat v preiskavi ni sodeloval.
Considering that the related Chinese producer was subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty in force, it was found that the criterion of the second sentence of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, which sets out that a new exporter or producer should show that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country which are subject to the anti-dumping measures on the product, is not fulfilled.
Glede na to, da je za povezanega kitajskega proizvajalca veljala trenutno veljavna dokončna protidampinška dajatev, je bilo ugotovljeno, da merilo iz drugega stavka člena 11(4) osnovne uredbe, ki določa, da mora novi izvoznik ali proizvajalec dokazati, da ni povezan z nobenim izvoznikom ali proizvajalcem v državi izvoznici, za katere veljajo protidampinški ukrepi za zadevni izdelek, ni izpolnjeno.
The applicant argued that the related producer did not export the product concerned to the Community during the original investigation period.
Vložnik je trdil, da povezani proizvajalec v prvotnem obdobju preiskave ni izvažal zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost.
In support of this argument, the applicant provided the related producer's audited accounts for the period between 2002 and 2004 which, according to the applicant, contained no indication of any export sales having been made during the original IP.
V podporo tej utemeljitvi je vložnik predložil revidirane računovodske izkaze za obdobje 2002–2004, iz katerih je po izjavah vložnika razvidno, da v prvotnem OP izdelkov ni izvažal.
The evidence submitted by the applicant did, however, not show that the related producer did indeed not export the product concerned during the original investigation period.
Vendar iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil vložnik, ni razvidno, da povezani proizvajalec v prvotnem obdobju preiskave dejansko ni izvažal zadevnega izdelka.
In fact, the audited accounts merely indicated that there were no exports of commodity products, without defining the exact meaning of commodity products, i.e. in particular whether the product concerned was considered as a ‘commodity product’.
Iz revidiranih računovodskih izkazov je bilo razvidno le, da niso izvažali čistega izdelka, vendar ta pojem ni bil natančno opredeljen, torej ali se zadevni izdelek obravnava kot „čisti izdelek“.
In this regard, it is noted that the related producer is also manufacturing products other than the product concerned.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da izdeluje povezani proizvajalec poleg zadevnega izdelka tudi druge izdelke.
In addition, it should be noted that, apart from submitting its audited accounts, the related producer did not cooperate during the current investigation and that therefore, the information submitted by this company could not be verified.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da razen tega, da je povezani proizvajalec predložil revidirane računovodske izkaze, v sedanji preiskavi ni sodeloval, zato informacij, ki jih je predložila ta družba, ni bilo mogoče preveriti.
Thus, no evidence was available showing that all sales made to domestic customers, for example traders, during the original IP were indeed destined for the domestic market, and not in reality intended for export to the Community.
Na voljo torej ni bilo dokazov, da je bila v prvotnem OP celotna prodaja domačim strankam, na primer trgovcem, resnično namenjena za domači trg in ne za izvoz v Skupnost.
Consequently, it could not be determined whether or not export sales had taken place during the original IP.
Zato tudi ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali se je izvoz v prvotnem OP izvajal ali ne.
After disclosure, the applicant claimed that clarifications concerning the audited accounts should have been requested earlier and in any case prior to disclosure.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da bi bilo treba natančnejše podatke o revidiranih računovodskih izkazih zahtevati prej, v vsakem primeru pa pred razkritjem.
In this regard, it is noted that the Chinese related producer was requested to provide the information, made aware of the deficiency and asked to cooperate in the present proceeding, which it refused to do.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je bil kitajski povezani proizvajalec pozvan, da predloži informacije, opozorjen na pomanjkljivosti in zaprošen za sodelovanje v sedanji preiskavi, kar pa je zavrnil.
Therefore, findings with regard to this company were based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Zato so ugotovitve v zvezi s to družbo v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe temeljile na razpoložljivih dejstvih.
Under these circumstances, any requests for further information after the deadlines applicable was considered inappropriate and discriminatory with regard to the normal practice of the Community institutions in relation to non-cooperating parties.
V teh okoliščinah se ni zdelo primerno, da se po poteku predpisanega roka zahtevajo nadaljnje informacije, kar je tudi diskriminatorno, upoštevajoč običajno prakso institucij Skupnosti v zvezi z nesodelujočimi strankami.
It is noted that findings were in any case disclosed to the applicant who was given ample opportunity to comment on these findings.
Opozarja se, da so bile ugotovitve vložniku v vsakem primeru razkrite in da je imel dovolj možnosti za predložitev svojih pripomb.
In any event, the argument that the related producer did or did not export to the Community is irrelevant, because as mentioned above in recital (13) and as outlined in recitals (18) to (31) below, the related producer did not cooperate in this review and, therefore, the Commission could not establish whether the economic group composed of the applicant and the related producer did fulfil the requirements to be considered as operating under market economy conditions.
Sicer pa ugotovitev, ali je povezani proizvajalec v Skupnost izvažal ali ne, ni pomembna, saj, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (13) zgoraj in poudarjeno v uvodnih izjavah (18) do (31) spodaj, povezani proizvajalec pri tem pregledu ni sodeloval in zato Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali je skupina družb, ki jo sestavljata vložnik in povezani proizvajalec, izpolnila zahteve, na podlagi katerih se zanjo lahko šteje, da deluje pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
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, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe se normalna vrednost v protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz LRK določi v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 navedenega člena za tiste proizvajalce, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, tj. kjer se izkaže, da v zvezi s proizvodnjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka veljajo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
These criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
Ta merila so povzeta v nadaljevanju:
firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes,
družbe imajo jasen seznam osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se neodvisno pregledujejo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („MRS“) in se uporabljajo za vse namene,
no distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,
ni izkrivljanj, ki bi še ostala iz bivšega sistema netržnega gospodarstva,
The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and was invited to complete a MET claim form.
Vložnik je zahteval TGO v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in je bil pozvan, da izpolni obrazec zahtevka za TGO.
As mentioned above in recital (11), the investigation revealed that the applicant was related to another producer of the product concerned located in China.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (11) zgoraj, je preiskava pokazala, da je bil vložnik povezan z drugim proizvajalcem zadevnega izdelka s sedežem na Kitajskem.
Although invited to do so, the related producer did not fill in a separate MET claim form.
Kljub povabilu k izpolnitvi ločenega obrazca zahtevka za TGO povezani proizvajalec tega ni storil.
It has to be noted that it is the Commission's consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for MET.
Treba je opozoriti, da je ustaljena praksa Komisije preveriti, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO.
This is deemed to be necessary to avoid that sales of a group of companies are channelled via one of the related companies in the group, should measures be imposed.
To se zdi potrebno, da se skupini družb prepreči, da bi v primeru uvedbe ukrepov preusmerile svojo prodajo preko ene od povezanih družb.
Therefore, in cases where a subsidiary or any other related company is a producer and/or a seller of the product concerned, all such related companies have to provide a MET claim form in order that an examination can be made as to whether they also meet the criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Zato morajo v primeru, ko hčerinska družba ali katera koli druga povezana družba proizvaja in/ali prodaja zadevni izdelek, vse take povezane družbe predložiti obrazec zahtevka za TGO, da se lahko preveri, ali izpolnjujejo tudi merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Consequently, failure in that respect leads to the result that it cannot be established that the group, as a whole, fulfils all the conditions for MET.
Če ta zahteva ni izpolnjena, ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali skupina kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO.
The Commission informed the applicant forthwith that in the absence of a reply by the related producer, it could not examine whether that company operates under market economy conditions.
Komisija je nemudoma obvestila pritožnika, da ni mogla preveriti, ali družba deluje pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, ker povezani proizvajalec ni izpolnil vprašalnika.
The applicant argued that both companies are competitors on the domestic market and are not on ‘good terms’.
Vložnik je trdil, da si obe družbi konkurirata na domačem trgu in „nista v dobrem odnosu“.
In addition, it was argued that the related company refused to submit any confidential information for the purpose of this investigation, which it feared would result in improving the market position of its competitor, i.e. the applicant.
Trdil je še, da povezana družba ni hotela predložiti kakršnih koli zaupnih informacij za to preiskavo, saj se je bala, da bi to pomenilo boljši tržni položaj njenega konkurenta, tj. vložnika.
It is noted that in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, the related producer could have requested confidential treatment of information required to be submitted to allay any concerns about disclosure of confidential business data to competitors.
Opozarja se, da bi lahko v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe povezani proizvajalec zahteval zaupno obravnavo zahtevanih informacij in tako odpravil bojazen, da bi se zaupni poslovni podatki razkrili konkurentom.
However, it chose not to submit the required information without having made any request for confidential treatment.
Vendar se je, ne da bi zahteval zaupno obravnavo, odločil, da zahtevanih informacij ne predloži.
Therefore, the applicant's argument had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba vložnikove utemeljitve zavrniti.
The applicant also argued that its business decisions cannot be influenced by the related producer.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da povezani proizvajalec ne more vplivati na njegove poslovne odločitve.
Besides the fact that this argument has not been substantiated by any evidence, it is also irrelevant since, as explained above, MET treatment should in any event be refused to the applicant if its related company does not complete the MET form and fulfils the MET conditions.
Poleg tega, da ta utemeljitev ni bila podprta z nobenim dokazom, tudi ni pomembna, saj je treba, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, vložniku TGO v vsakem primeru zavrniti, če njegova povezana družba ne izpolni obrazca zahtevka za TGO, čeprav sam izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO.
Furthermore, even if the substance of the claim were to be examined, it is noted that the facts available in the present case indicated, in contrast to the applicant's claim, that the related producer, having one member on the board of directors of the applicant, had an influence in the decision making of the applicant.
Tudi če bi bila trditev preverjena, so razpoložljiva dejstva v tem primeru pokazala, da je povezani proizvajalec vplival na sprejemanje odločitev vložnika, saj ima enega člana v svetu direktorjev njegove družbe, kar pa je v nasprotju s trditvami vložnika.
Indeed, the related producer can block company decisions concerning amendments to the articles of association, dissolution of the joint venture, changes of registered capital or merger or split of the company with other organizations, which require unanimity.
Povezani proizvajalec lahko družbi dejansko prepreči sprejem odločitve v zvezi s spremembo statuta, popolnim prenehanjem skupnega podjetja, spremembami delniškega kapitala in združitvijo družbe z drugimi organizacijami ali ločitvijo od njih, za kar je potrebno soglasje.
Furthermore, the purpose of the joint venture between the applicant and the related producer was, as laid down by chapter 5 of the joint venture agreement, to achieve ‘a competitive position in quality and price for the world market’, to ‘produce and sell polyester staple fibre’ and to ‘import and export products and raw materials in connection with polyester staple fibre’ which indicates that both companies would indeed cooperate and at least adjust their decisions in order to maximise their world market position.
Namen skupnega podjetja med vložnikom in povezanim proizvajalcem je bil, kot je določeno v poglavju 5 sporazuma o skupnem podjetju, doseči „konkurenčen položaj glede kakovosti in cene na svetovnem trgu“, „proizvajati in prodajati poliestrska rezana vlakna“ ter „uvažati in izvažati izdelke in surovine, povezane s poliestrskimi rezanimi vlakni“, kar dokazuje, da bi obe družbi dejansko sodelovali in vsaj prilagodili svoje odločitve, da bi dosegli čim boljši položaj na svetovnem trgu.
The applicant's argument had therefore to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba vložnikove utemeljitve zavrniti.
Subsequent to disclosure, the applicant reiterated that the related Chinese producer had only minor or peripheral influence on its business decisions, as its consent is only required for decisions regarding the company's existence as such, i.e. decisions linked to the related Chinese producer investments, while business decisions are made in line with the global strategy of its main shareholder, where the Chinese producer had no influence.
Po razkritju je vložnik ponovno poudaril, da je imel povezani kitajski proizvajalec le manjši oziroma obroben vpliv na njegove poslovne odločitve, saj je njegovo soglasje potrebno le za odločitve v zvezi z obstojem družbe kot take, tj. odločitve, povezane z naložbami povezanega kitajskega proizvajalca, poslovne odločitve pa se sprejemajo v skladu s splošno strategijo njegovega glavnega delničarja, na kar pa kitajski proizvajalec ni imel vpliva.
Furthermore, the related Chinese producer would not be involved in the company's management.
Povezani kitajski proizvajalec domnevno tudi ni sodeloval pri upravljanju družbe.
The applicant further argued that the decision to reject the applicant's claim for MET on the mere grounds of the non-cooperation of the related Chinese producer would be unjustified because this relationship only constituted a technical requirement without any practical relevance for the applicant.
Vložnik je nadalje trdil, da je odločitev o zavrnitvi vložnikovega zahtevek za TGO le zaradi nesodelovanja povezanega kitajskega proizvajalca neupravičena, saj gre le za formalno povezavo in nima za vložnika nikakršnega praktičnega pomena.
It was also argued that the company was not related to any of the Chinese exporting producers of PSF subject to the anti-dumping measures in force, since the related company did not export to the Community during the original investigation period, and could therefore not have cooperated in the original investigation and request an individual duty.
Trdil je še, da družba ni bil povezana z nobenim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom RVP, za katerega veljajo veljavni protidampinški ukrepi, saj povezana družba v prvotnem obdobju preiskave ni izvažala v Skupnost in zato ni mogla sodelovati v prvotni preiskavi in zahtevati individualne dajatve.
As outlined above under recital (23), the possibility that the related Chinese company could exert significant influence on the business operations of the applicant could not be considered as minor or peripheral.
Kot je podarjeno v uvodni izjavi (23) zgoraj, se možnost znatnega vplivanja povezanega kitajskega proizvajalca na poslovanje vložnika ni mogla šteti za majhno ali obrobno.
On the contrary, such influence relates to crucial aspects as described under the said recital.
Nasprotno, kot je pojasnjeno v navedeni uvodni izjavi, tak vpliv zadeva ključne vidike.
Likewise, since the related Chinese company did not cooperate in this investigation, it was not possible for the Commission to determine whether this company did not export to the Community during the original investigation period, as claimed.
Ker povezana kitajska družba v tej preiskavi ni sodelovala, Komisija ni mogla odločiti, ali družba v prvotnem obdobju preiskave res ni izvažala v Skupnost, kot se je trdilo.
The comments provided by the applicant contained no basis on which the conclusions made under recital (13) could be revised.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložil vložnik, niso bile zadostne, da bi bile lahko podlaga za spremembo sklepov iz uvodne izjave (13).
In any event, the fact that the related company could not have asked for MET or IT during the original investigation does not invalidate the fact that it is subject to the measures in force, i.e. the residual duty.
Dejstvo, da povezana družba med prvotno preiskavo ni mogla zaprositi za TGO ali IO, vsekakor ne razveljavi dejstva, da zanjo veljajo veljavni ukrepi, tj. preostala dajatev.
Finally, on a more general basis, it was submitted that the main elements on the basis of which it was decided to reject the applicant's request for MET (i.e. the relationship to the Chinese related producer) were already known to the Commission before the investigation was initiated.
Nazadnje je bilo bolj na splošno utemeljeno, da so bile glavne prvine, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o zavrnitvi vložnikovega zahtevka za TGO (tj. povezava s kitajskim proizvajalcem), Komisiji znane že pred začetkom preiskave.
In this regard, it is noted that the main reason to reject the applicant's claim for MET as set out in recitals (13), (23) above and (31) below, was not the existence of the related Chinese producer as such but its non-cooperation and, as a consequence, the impossibility to determine, amongst others, in how far the State had indeed an influence on the applicant's business decisions and whether the related producer did not export during the original IP as claimed.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da glavni razlog za zavrnitev vložnikovega zahtevka za TGO ni bil obstoj povezave s kitajskim proizvajalcem kot take, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (13) in (23) zgoraj ter (31) spodaj, ampak njegovo nesodelovanje in posledično nemožnost določitve, med drugim, v kolikšni meri je država dejansko vplivala na poslovne odločitve vložnika in ali povezani proizvajalec v prvotnem OP res ni izvažal, kot se je trdilo.
The claims of the applicant were therefore rejected.
Zato so bili vložnikovi zahtevki zavrnjeni.
In addition, no determination could be made with regard to possible distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
Prav tako ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali je prišlo do izkrivljanj, ki bi ostala iz bivšega sistema netržnega gospodarstva, ali ne.
Indeed, the partly State-owned related producer contributed the land use rights to the applicant's registered capital.
Dejansko je povezani proizvajalec, ki je delno v lasti države, prispeval pravice do rabe zemljišč v vložnikov delniški kapital.
In the absence of cooperation from the related producer, it was not possible to conclude that no such distortions existed.
Zaradi nesodelovanja povezanega proizvajalca ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali takšno izkrivljanje obstaja ali ne.
In view of the above, and in the absence of a duly substantiated MET claim form from the applicant's related producer, the Commission could not conclude whether the group of companies, i.e. the applicant and its related producer, fulfil the MET criteria.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in ker vložnikov povezani proizvajalec ni ustrezno predložil obrazcev zahtevka za TGO, Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali skupina družb, tj. vložnik in njegov povezani proizvajalec, izpolnjuje merila TGO.
Individual Treatment (IT)
Individualna obravnava („IO“)
Further to Article 2(7) 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 for individual treatment 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 za individualno obravnavo, določena v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
The applicant, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being granted MET.
Vložnik je poleg TGO zahteval tudi IO, če mu TGO ne bi bil odobren.
As described in recital (11), a partly State-owned producer of PSF is related to the applicant.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (11), je proizvajalec RVP, ki je delno v lasti države, povezan z vložnikom.
Since the related producer did not cooperate with the present investigation, the Commission services could not conclude whether State interference was such as to permit circumvention.
Ker povezani proizvajalec v sedanji preiskavi ni sodeloval, službe Komisije niso mogle ugotoviti, ali je bilo poseganje države tako, da bi dovoljevalo izogibanje ukrepom.
Therefore, it was concluded that IT could not be granted to the applicant.
Zato se je sklenilo, da vložniku IO ni bilo mogoče odobriti.