natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The data provided showed that the energy requirements of the Canadian producer were similar to those of the applicant Russian producers and that electricity and gas purchased by this company was derived from domestic hydro-electric power and major gas fields, as is the electricity and gas used by the Russian companies.
Posredovani podatki so pokazali, da so potrebe kanadskega proizvajalca po energiji podobne tistim, ki jih imata ruska proizvajalca vložnika in da sta nabavljena elektrika in plin izvirala iz domačih hidroelektrarn in glavnih plinskih polj, tako kot elektrika in plin, ki ju uporabljata ruski družbi.
The comparison showed that the cost per unit for electricity paid by the Canadian producer was not too dissimilar to that paid by the Russian producers.
Ta primerjava je pokazala, da stroški elektrike na enoto, ki jih plačuje kanadski proizvajalec, niso tako različni od tistih, ki jih plačujeta ruska proizvajalca.
As concerns gas supplies, it was established on the basis of data found in the published annual report for 2003 of the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom (whose regional distributor was also the supplier to the exporting producers in question), that the domestic price of gas paid by the two Russian Producers was around one fifth of the export price from Russia.
Kar zadeva dobavo plina, je bilo na podlagi podatkov iz objavljenega letnega poročila ruskega dobavitelja plina OAO Gazprom (katerega regionalni distributer je bil tudi dobavitelj za zadevna proizvajalca izvoznika) za leto 2003 ugotovljeno, da je domača cena, ki sta jo plačevala oba ruska proizvajalca, predstavljala približno petino izvozne cene iz Rusije.
The same report clearly stated that ‘OAO Gazprom did not make any profit in the domestic market’.
Isto poročilo je jasno navajalo, da „OAO Gazprom na domačem trgu ni ustvaril nikakršnega dobička“.
While there is no officially available information as to the profitability of Russian domestic gas prices, quotes from Russian government sources in the press together with data obtained from specialized market intelligence sources and governmental websites all strongly suggest that the gas prices charged to domestic customers were made at prices far from cost recovery levels.
Medtem ko ni nobenih razpoložljivih uradnih informacij o donosnosti ruskih domačih cen plina, pa navedbe ruskih vladnih virov v tisku skupaj s podatki, zbranimi od specializiranih virov za tržne informacije in z vladnih spletnih strani, močno kažejo, da so bile cene pline, zaračunane domačim kupcem, daleč od stopenj pokrivanja stroškov.
Moreover, the price of gas paid by the two Russian Producers was significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Canadian producers.
Poleg tega je bila cena plina, ki sta jo plačevala ruska proizvajalca, znatno nižja od cene plina, ki jo je plačeval kanadski proizvajalec.
In view of the above, it was therefore considered that the prices charged by the regional Russian gas provider to the Russian potash producers in the investigation period could not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of gas when compared to the exported price of gas from Russia and the price of a Canadian gas provider to a major industrial user in Canada.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se zato šteje, da cene, ki jo je ruskim proizvajalcem pepelike v obdobju preiskave zaračunaval ruski regionalni dobavitelj plina, niso mogle realno odražati stroškov, povezanih s proizvodnjo plina, če jih primerjamo z izvoznimi cenami plina iz Rusije in ceno kanadskega dobavitelja plina glavnemu industrijskemu uporabniku v Kanadi.
In accordance, therefore, with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, an adjustment to the cost of production for each of the applicants was made.
Zato je bila v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe narejena prilagoditev proizvodnih stroškov za vsakega izmed vložnikov.
In the absence of any other reasonable basis, such an adjustment was made using information concerning the price of gas for export, net of transport costs, customs export tax, value added tax and excise duty.
Ker ni bilo nobene druge razumne osnove, je bila ta prilagoditev narejena s pomočjo uporabe podatkov v zvezi s ceno plina za izvoz, neto stroški prevoza, carinskega izvoznega davka, davka na dodano vrednost in trošarino.
In this regard, it was submitted by one of the applicants that the charges for gas were properly reflected in its accounting records, therefore no adjustment was warranted under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je eden od vložnikov opozoril, da so bili stroški za plin na ustrezen način prikazani v računovodski bilanci, zato prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe ni bila utemeljena.
In response to this argument it is not disputed that the company has correctly accounted for the invoiced prices paid, rather 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 the gas.
V zvezi s tem argumentom ni sporno, da je družba pravilno obračunala fakturirane cene, vendar pa se prilagoditev upraviči z dejstvom, da cena nabavljenega plina realno ne odraža proizvodnih stroškov in distribucije plina.
On the adjustment for the gas costs, it was also submitted by the Russian Authorities that the Commission had not taken into account the different transportation costs between the gas sold domestically for industrial usage and the gas sold for export.
Tudi glede prilagoditve za stroške plina so ruski organi opozorili, da Komisija ni upoštevala različnih stroškov prevoza med plinom, prodanim na domačem trgu za industrijsko rabo, in plinom, prodanim za izvoz.
It should be recalled (see recital 31) that the comparison which has led to the adjustment has been made between the gas prices actually paid by the companies and the export prices charged by the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom for export from Russia, net of transport costs, customs export tax, value added tax and excise duty.
Treba je opozoriti (glej uvodno izjavo 31), da je bila primerjava, ki je pripeljala do prilagoditve, narejena med cenami plina, ki so jih družbe dejansko plačale, in izvoznimi cenami, ki jih je ruski dobavitelj plina zaračunaval za izvoz iz Rusije, neto stroški prevoza, carinskega izvoznega davka, davka na dodano vrednost ter trošarino.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
Zato se ta trditev zavrne.
One of the applicants submitted that it had a significantly lower unit cost of production during the first quarter of 2004 (i.e. the last quarter of the investigation period) due to increased efficiency and lower maintenance costs and that this lower unit cost should be considered as the basis for the cost of production for the whole investigation period.
Eden izmed vložnikov je trdil, da je imel v prvem četrtletju leta 2004 (tj. zadnje četrtletje obdobja preiskave) znatno manjše proizvodne stroške zaradi povečane učinkovitosti in nižjih stroškov vzdrževanja in da bi bilo treba te manjše stroške na enoto upoštevati kot osnovo za proizvodne stroške za celotno obdobje preiskave.
This request was not granted as the appropriate basis for establishing such costs is the full investigation period, rather than costs occurring in an exceptional, shorter, period.
Tej zahtevi se ni ugodilo, ker je primerna osnova za določitev takšnih stroškov skupno obdobje preiskave in ne stroški, ki nastanejo v posebnem, krajšem obdobju.
As also concerns cost of production, it was submitted by the Community industry that depreciation of capital assets should, for the purpose of the applicants’ cost of production, be based on the replacement costs of such assets (e.g. new mine shafts and machinery etc.).
Kar to tudi zadeva proizvodne stroške, je industrija Skupnosti opozorila, da bi morala amortizacija osnovnih sredstev za proizvodne stroške vložnika temeljiti na nadomestitvenih stroških teh sredstev (na primer novi rudniški jaški in stroji).
In this regard, it was argued that depreciation based conventionally on the acquisition (historical) value of the capital assets would not, in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of the product concerned.
V zvezi s tem se je trdilo, da amortizacija, ki po dogovoru temelji na nabavni (dejanski) vrednosti osnovnih sredstev, v skladu s členom 2 (5) osnovne uredbe ne bo realno odražala stroškov, povezanih s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
It was submitted, therefore, that an upward adjustment to the Russian producers’ costs was required.
Opozorilo se je, da se zato zahteva prilagajanje navzgor ruskih proizvodnih stroškov.
As concerns this submission, it was noted that depreciation based on the acquisition value and residual economical life of capital assets appears to be in line with accounting practices in the mining industry.
V zvezi s to trditvijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da amortizacija, ki temelji na nabavni vrednosti in preostali obratovalni dobi osnovnih sredstev, kaže usklajenost z računovodskimi postopki v rudarstvu.
Therefore, in order to establish whether the depreciation included in the cost of production data reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production of the product concerned, the investigation focused on the way the historical values of the assets had been established.
Da bi se zato ugotovilo, ali je amortizacija, zajeta v podatkih o proizvodnih stroških, realno odražala stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka, se je preiskava osredotočila, na način, kako so bile določene dejanske vrednosti osnovnih sredstev.
In this regard, the on-the-spot verification visits to the Russian producers showed that the original value of their assets had been determined on the basis of valuations carried out during the privatization process which took place in 1993.
V zvezi s tem so preveritveni obiski pri ruskih proizvajalcih pokazali, da je bila osnovna vrednost njunih osnovnih sredstev določena na podlagi vrednotenj, izvedenih med procesom privatizacije leta 1993.
These asset values were subsequently revised between 1993 and 1997 as a result of the application of ‘revaluation coefficients’ issued by the Russian Government to deal with hyperinflation.
Vrednosti osnovnih sredstev so bile nato popravljene med leti 1993 in 1997 kot posledica uporabe „revalorizacijskih koeficientov“, ki jih je ruska vlada uvedla proti hiperinflaciji.
At the end of 1997, following a Decree of the Russian Government, independent valuations of assets were carried out by independent evaluators.
Ob koncu leta 1997 in po uredbi ruske vlade so neodvisna vrednotenja osnovnih sredstev izvedli neodvisni ocenjevalci.
Three basic criteria were adopted in establishing these asset values, one of which was the replacement value of the asset.
Za določitev teh osnovnih sredstev so bila sprejeta tri osnovna merila, izmed katerih je bila eno tudi nadomestitvena vrednost osnovnih sredstev.
The result of these independent assessments are reflected in the opening Balance Sheet of the applicants in 1998.
Ugotovitev teh neodvisnih vrednotenj je prikazana tudi v bilancah stanja vložnikov leta 1998.
Nevertheless, despite this upward valuation of the original values, it was noted that the asset values of the applicants, when expressed as a ratio of production to value of the assets, still appear to be significantly lower than the asset values of the companies comprising the Community industry and a major producer with similar extraction and production capacity in Canada.
Kljub vrednotenju osnovnih vrednosti navzgor, je bilo ugotovljeno, da se zdijo vrednosti osnovnih sredstev vložnikov, kadar so izražena kot razmerje proizvodnje z vrednostjo osnovnih sredstev, še vedno znatno nižje od vrednosti osnovnih sredstev družb, ki sestavljajo industrijo Skupnosti, in velikega proizvajalca v Kanadi, ki ima podobne zmogljivosti pridobivanja rud in proizvodne zmogljivosti.
Such an assessment, however, does not take into account the obsolescence and lower technological level of the assets of the Russian producers obtained prior to the privatisation which took place in 1993.
Takšno vrednotenje pa ne upošteva zastarelosti in nižje tehnološke ravni osnovnih sredstev ruskih proizvajalcev pred privatizacijo leta 1993.
Therefore in the absence of any substantive evidence showing that depreciation had not been correctly reflected in the accounts of the exporting producers, it is not considered possible at the present time to make any adjustment to depreciation costs in the cost of production data used for establishing the normal value of the applicants.
Zato se ob pomanjkanju kakršnih koli vsebinskih dokazov, ki bi nakazovali, da amortizacija v računovodski dokumentaciji proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni bila pravilno prikazana, trenutno ne zdi verjetno, da se naredi prilagoditev stroškov amortizacije pri podatkih o proizvodnih stroških, ki se uporabljajo za določitev normalne vrednosti vložnikov.
The Community industry also submitted that an allocation for environmental protection costs comparable to those incurred by the Community producers should also be factored into the cost of production calculations.
Industrija Skupnosti je prav tako opozorila, da bi morala biti tudi razporeditev stroškov za varstvo okolja, primerljivih s tistimi, ki jih imajo proizvajalci Skupnost, upoštevana pri izračunih proizvodnih stroškov.
It was found, however, that the applicants had incurred such costs and had accounted for them in the cost of production calculations.
Vendar pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da sta vložnika imela takšne stroške in sta jih obračunala pri izračunih proizvodnih stroškov.
With regard to whether such costs should be of a similar proportion or magnitude to those of the Community producers, it is considered that as long as the applicants have met the environmental protection levels prescribed by the Russian authorities and that the costs involved in meeting such levels are correctly reflected in their records, no adjustment is required.
V zvezi s tem, ali bi morala biti delež ali stopnja takšnih stroškov podobna kot pri proizvajalcih Skupnosti, se šteje, da dokler sta vložnika spoštovala ravni varstva okolja, ki so jih določile ruske oblasti, in da so s tem povezani stroški za dosego teh ravnih pravilno prikazani v njunih bilancah, prilagoditev ni potrebna.
As this was found to be the case for both of the applicants, no adjustment was warranted for environmental costs.
Ker je bilo to ugotovljeno pri obeh vložnikih, prilagoditev za okoljske stroške ni bila utemeljena.
With regard to Silvinit, it was found that most of the company’s sales of potash to the Community in the investigation period were made via an unrelated Swiss trading company.
V zvezi z družbo Silvinit je bilo ugotovljeno, da se je večina prodaje pepelike v Skupnost v obdobju preiskave izvajala nepovezani švicarski trgovski družbi.
For the purposes of the present investigation and pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the prices, actually paid or payable to Silvinit by this trading company, were taken as the basis for calculating the export price.
Za namen te preiskave in v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe so bile cene, ki jih je ta trgovska družba dejansko plačala ali plačevala družbi Silvinit, upoštevane kot osnova za izračun izvozne cene.
However, it was found that two transactions were made via Silvinit’s related Russian trading company, International Potash Company (IPC), to a related company in Belgium called Ferchimex AS (Ferchimex), which processed the imported potash into a product not covered by the investigation.
Kljub temu je bilo ugotovljeno, da sta bili preko Silvinitove povezane ruske trgovske družbe International Potash Company („IPC“) izvedeni dve transakciji povezani družbi v Belgiji z imenom Ferchimex AS („Ferchimex“), ki je predelovala uvoženo pepeliko v izdelek, ki ni zajet v preiskavi.
In accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the prices charged by IPC to Ferchimex may be disregarded if they are considered to be unreliable.
V skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe ni potrebno upoštevati cen, ki jih je družba IPC zaračunavala družbi Ferchimex, če se te štejejo za nezanesljive.
It was noted that for both of the transactions, the sales price to Ferchimex were at a broadly similar price for the same types when sold to independent customers in the Community.
Pri obeh transakcijah je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile cene za družbo Ferchimex v spošnem na podobni ravni za iste vrste, ko so bile prodane neodvisnim kupcem v Skupnosti.
Moreover, both transactions concerned only minor quantities.
Poleg tega sta obe transakciji zadevali samo majhne količine.
Therefore, they were both included in the overall determination of the export price.
Zato sta bili obe vključeni v skupno določitev izvozne cene.
As concerns Uralkali, it was found that all of the company’s sales of potash to the Community in the investigation period were made directly to a trader situated in Cyprus called Fertexim Ltd which acted as an exclusive distributor for Uralkali.
V zvezi z družbo Uralkali je bilo ugotovljeno, da se je vsa prodaja pepelike v Skupnost v obdobju preiskave izvajala neposredno trgovcu iz Cipra z imenom Fertexim Ltd, ki je nastopal kot ekskluzivni distributer družbe Uralkali.
For such sales, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by Fertexim.
Izvozna cena za tako prodajo je bila določena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe, tj. na podlagi plačanih ali plačljivih izvoznih cen družbe Fertexim.
The normal value and export prices for both of the applicants were compared on an ex-works basis.
Primerjava normalne vrednosti in izvoznih cen za oba vložnika je bila opravljena na podlagi cene izdelka franko tovarna.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance was made for differences which affect price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Za zagotavljanje pravične primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno so bila odobrena nadomestila za razlike, ki vplivajo na primerljivost cen v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, allowances for differences in respect of discounts, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing and credit costs have been granted where applicable and supported by evidence.
Kjer je bilo ustrezno in podprto s dokazi, so bila odobrena nadomestila za razlike v popustih, stroških prevoza, zavarovanja, manipuliranja, natovarjanja in drugih tozadevnih stroških, stroških pakiranja in stroških posojil.
In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for each exporting producer the adjusted weighted average normal value by product type was compared to the adjusted weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned sold to the Community.
V skladu s členom 2(11) osnovne uredbe se je za vsakega proizvajalca izvoznika prilagojena tehtana povprečna normalna vrednost po vrsti izdelka primerjala s prilagojeno tehtano povprečno izvozno ceno vsake ustrezne vrste zadevnega izdelka, prodanega v Skupnost.
The comparison showed the existence of dumping for both of the companies concerned, however, at significantly lower levels than those established previously.
Primerjava je pokazala obstoj dampinga za obe zadevni družbi, vendar na znatno nižji ravni, od tiste, ki je bila vzpostavljena prej.
As a weighted average of all types exported to the Community, expressed as percentages of the total CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, the dumping margins established were as follows:
Ugotovljene stopnje dampinga glede na tehtano povprečje vseh vrst izdelkov, izvoženih v Skupnost, in izražene kot odstotek cene CIF na meji Skupnosti brez plačane dajatve, so:
% Dumping margin
Stopnja dampinga v odstotkih
In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, an analysis was made as to whether the circumstances with regard to dumping had changed significantly and if any change could be said to be of a lasting nature.
V skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe je bilo narejena analiza, da se ugotovi, če so se okoliščine glede dampinga bistveno spremenile in če se katero koli spremembo lahko šteje kot trajno.
In this regard, it was found that the change in the dumping margins resulted from a lowering of the normal values of the applicants.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da je sprememba stopenj dampinga nastala zaradi znižanja normalnih vrednosti vložnikov.
In this regard, it should be noted that in the present investigation, normal value was established on the basis of the applicants’ costs and prices.
Tu je treba opozoriti, da je bila v tej preiskavi normalna vrednost določena na podlagi stroškov in cen vložnikov.
Moreover, contrary to the findings in the previous investigation, domestic consumption for potash has been steadily increasing in the last few years and, overall, the domestic sales prices of both Russian producers are profitable.
Poleg tega je, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami prejšnje preiskave, domača poraba pepelike v zadnjih letih postopno naraščala in, gledano v celoti, so domače prodajne cene za oba ruska proizvajalca dobičkonosne.
As concerns the lasting nature of export sales prices on markets other than the Community, neither of the applicants was able to provide detailed data on a transaction-by-transaction basis at producer level.
Kar zadeva trajno naravo prodajnih cen za izvoz na druge trge poleg Skupnosti, noben od vložnikov ni posredoval podrobnih podatkov o posameznih transakcijah na ravni proizvajalca.
Aggregated data was, however, provided by country of destination and by product type.
Posredovala pa sta skupne podatke po namembni državi in vrsti izdelka.
There were, however, indications that sales price levels to the non-Community markets were, allowing for transport costs, of the same order of magnitude as sales to the Community.
Kljub temu je kazalo, da so ravni prodajnih cen za trge izven Skupnosti ob upoštevanju stroškov prevoza na enaki ravni kot prodaja v Skupnost.
In view of all these factors, it is considered appropriate to amend the existing measures insofar as they concern the applicants by lowering the dumping margins to those established in the present investigation.
Glede na vse te dejavnike se zdi primerno spremeniti obstoječe ukrepe, kolikor ti zadevajo vložnika, z znižanjem stopenj dampinga na tiste, ki so določeni v tej preiskavi.
According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping duties should not exceed the margins of dumping established, but they should be less than those margins if such lesser duties would be adequate to remove the injury of the Community Industry.
V skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe znesek protidampinških dajatev ne sme presegati določenih dampinških stopenj, ampak morajo biti te nižje od navedenih stopenj, če bi take nižje dajatve zadoščale za odpravo škode industriji Skupnosti.
As the existing duties for the applicants had been calculated on the basis of the dumping margins, and as the new dumping margins are lower than the ones previously calculated, the duties should be adjusted to the lower dumping margins found in this investigation, namely 23,0 % for JSC Silvinit and 12,3 % for JSC Uralkali.
Glede na to, da so bile obstoječe dajatve za vložnika izračunane na podlagi stopenj dampinga in ker so nove stopnje dampinga nižje od tistih, ki so bile izračunane prej, je treba dajatve prilagoditi na nižje stopnje dampinga, ki so bile ugotovljene v tej preiskavi, in sicer 23 % za družbo JSC Silvinit in 12,3 % za družbo JSC Uralkali.
The interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the anti-dumping duties originally imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 be amended.
Zainteresirane stranke so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je bil predviden predlog za spremembo protidampinških dajatev, ki so bile prvotno uvedene z Uredbo (EGS) št. 3068/92.
All comments received were taken into consideration where appropriate.
Vse prejete pripombe so upoštevane, kjer je bilo primerno.