natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Central and North Greece (Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Central Macedonia, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Mainland (Sterea) Greece and North Aegean)
Srednja in severna Grčija (Vzhodna Makedonija in Trakija, Srednja Makedonija, Zahodna Makedonija, Epir, Tesalija, Celinska (Sterea) Grčija in Severno Egejsko morje)
1 July
julij
France: Aquitaine and Midi-Pyrénées
Francija: Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées
France: Alsace, Auvergne, Burgundy, Brittany, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corsica, Franche-Comté, Île-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Lower Normandy, Upper Normandy, Loire Region, Picardy, Poitou-Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur and Rhône-Alpes
Francija: Alsace, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Bretagne, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corse, Franche-Comté, Ile-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Basse-Normandie, Haute-Normandie, Pays de la Loire, Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur in Rhône-Alpes
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1135/2006
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1135/2006
amending the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 26 July 2006
o spremembah uvoznih dajatev v sektorju žit, v uporabi od 26. julija 2006
The import duties in the cereals sector are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1098/2006 [3].
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1098/2006 [3] določa uvozne dajatve v sektorju žit.
It is therefore necessary to adjust the import duties fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1098/2006,
Zato je treba prilagoditi uvozne dajatve, določene v Uredbi (ES) št. 1098/2006 –
Annexes I and II to Regulation (EC) No 1098/2006 are hereby replaced by Annexes I and II to this Regulation.
Prilogi I in II k Uredbi (ES) št. 1098/2006 se zamenjata s prilogama I in II k tej uredbi.
OJ L 195, 15.7.2006, p. 19.
UL L 195, 15.7.2006, str. 19.
Import duties for the products covered by Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 applicable from 26 July 2006
Uvozne dajatve za proizvode iz člena 10(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1784/2003, v uporabi od 26. julija 2006
Freight/cost: Gulf of Mexico–Rotterdam: 20,49 EUR/t; Great Lakes–Rotterdam: 26,64 EUR/t.
Prevoz/stroški: Mehiški zaliv–Rotterdam: 20,49 EUR/t; Velika jezera–Rotterdam: 26,64 EUR/t.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1136/2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz vzvodnih mehanizmov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“) in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
On 28 January 2006 the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 134/2006 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’).
Komisija je 28. januarja 2006 z Uredbo (ES) št. 134/2006 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz vzvodnih mehanizmov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“) v Skupnost.
It is recalled that the investigation period of dumping and injury (‘IP’) covered the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004.
Treba je opozoriti, da je obdobje preiskave dampinga in škode („OP“) zajelo obdobje od 1. januarja 2004 do 31. decembra 2004.
The examination of trends relevant for the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 2001 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za analizo škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2001 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms from the PRC, some interested parties submitted comments in writing.
Po uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz vzvodnih mehanizmov s poreklom iz LRK so nekatere zainteresirane stranke dale pisne pripombe.
The parties, who so requested, were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
Strankam je bila na zahtevo dana tudi možnost ustnega zaslišanja.
The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were examined, and, where considered appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.
Po proučitvi ustnih in pisnih pripomb, ki so jih predložile stranke, so bile ugotovitve po potrebi ustrezno spremenjene.
It is recalled that, in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as lever arch mechanisms (‘LAM’) generally used for archiving sheets and other documents in binders or files.
Treba je opozoriti, da zajema opredelitev zadevnega izdelka v uvodni izjavi (12) začasne uredbe vzvodne mehanizme, ki se običajno uporabljajo za arhiviranje listov in drugih dokumentov v fasciklih ter mapah z nepovezanimi listi.
They consist of arched sturdy metal elements (normally two) on a back plate and having at least one opening trigger that permits inserting and filing of sheets and other documents, originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’), normally falling within CN code ex83051000.
Mehanizmi, sestavljeni iz (običajno dveh) čvrstih upognjenih kovinskih delov, ki sta pritrjena na hrbtišče in imata najmanj eno vzvodno ročico, ki omogoča vstavljanje in odlaganje listov in drugih dokumentov, so zajeti v opredelitev izdelka s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („zadevni izdelek“), običajno uvrščenega pod oznako KN ex83051000.
One interested party claimed that one specific type of LAM should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned because (i) that type is produced under a patented design owned by the interested party and is not available from any other manufacturer, (ii) there is an exclusive supply contract with a Chinese producer, (iii) the type is exclusively used in premium special lever arch files (‘LAF’) with a superior quality and design compared to standard LAM and is therefore not competing with the segment of standard LAM, and (iv) this type is not economically substitutable with standard LAM in view of its much higher cost of production.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je trdila, da je treba določeno vrsto vzvodnih mehanizmov izključiti iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka, ker (i) je ta vrsta zaščitena s patentom zainteresirane stranke in je drugi proizvajalci ne izdelujejo, (ii) imajo ekskluzivno dobavno pogodbo s kitajskim proizvajalcem, (iii) se ta vrsta uporablja izključno za vzvodne mehanizme za fascikle visoke kakovosti in zato ne konkurira s standardnimi vzvodnimi mehanizmi in (iv) ta vrsta zaradi višjih stroškov proizvodnje v ekonomskem smislu ni nadomestljiva s standardnimi vzvodnimi mehanizmi.
However, another interested party claimed that all LAM have the same characteristics, end uses and channels of distribution.
Vendar pa je druga zainteresirana stranka trdila, da imajo vsi vzvodni mehanizmi enake lastnosti, končno uporabo in distribucijske poti.
Moreover, it stated that the manufacturing processes and costs are irrelevant for the determination of the product concerned.
Trdila je tudi, da proizvodni proces in stroški niso pomembni za določitev zadevnega izdelka.
It also stated that any preferential treatment of one type of LAM used by only one LAF producer would cause a serious distortion not only on the Community LAM market itself, but also on the Community market for LAF.
Trdili je še, da bi vsakršno preferencialno obravnavanje ene vrste vzvodnih mehanizmov, ki jo uporablja le en proizvajalec vzvodnih mehanizmov za fascikle, povzročilo resno izkrivljanje ne le na samem trgu vzvodnih mehanizmov Skupnosti, ampak tudi na trgu vzvodnih mehanizmov za fascikle.
It is considered that a patented design or an exclusive contract between an exporting producer and a European user for a certain type of product does not, as such, justify the exclusion of this type from the definition of the product concerned or the like product.
Šteje se, da s patentom zaščitena vrsta ali ekskluzivna pogodba med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in evropskim uporabnikom za določeno vrsto izdelka kot taki ne upravičujeta izključitve te vrste iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka ali podobnega izdelka.
A LAM with all its characteristics remains the product concerned irrespective of whether it is patented or purchased via an exclusive contract.
Vzvodni mehanizmi z vsemi svojimi lastnostmi ostajajo zadevni izdelek, ne glede na to, ali so zaščiteni s patentom ali kupljeni preko ekskluzivne pogodbe.
It should also be noted that manufacturing processes, production costs and quality differences are not, as such, relevant for the determination of the like product.
Treba pa je opomniti tudi, da proizvodni proces, proizvodni stroški in razlike v kakovosti kot taki niso pomembni za določitev podobnega izdelka.
The investigation confirmed that all product types including the specific type of LAM which was claimed for exclusion in recital (6) above share the same technical and physical product characteristics and uses and that the LAM market does not distinguish amongst clear market segments.
Preiskava je potrdila, da imajo se vrste izdelka, tudi posebne vrste vzvodnih mehanizmov, za katere se je v uvodni izjavi (6) zgoraj zahtevala izključitev, enake fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti in uporabe ter da na trgu vzvodnih mehanizmov ni različnih jasnih tržnih segmentov.
All LAM, are thus substitutable and are in competition with each other on the Community market.
Vsi vzvodni mehanizmi so torej nadomestljivi in na trgu Skupnosti med seboj konkurirajo.
Therefore, all types of LAM fall under the definition of the product concerned and the like product.
Zato se vse vrste vzvodnih mehanizmov uvrščajo v opredelitev zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka.
Consequently, the claim set out in recital (6) above had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba zahtevek iz uvodne izjave (6) zgoraj zavrniti.
In view of the above, the findings made in recital (11) to (16) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav (11) do (16) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
The general methodology used to establish dumping of the imports of LAM into the Community market was described in the provisional Regulation in recitals (17) to (50).
Splošna metodologija, ki se uporablja za določitev dampinga uvoza vzvodnih mehanizmov na trg Skupnosti, je opisana v uvodnih izjavah (17) do (50) začasne uredbe.
The general methodology as set out in the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed, with due consideration being taken of the amendments mentioned below.
Splošna metodologija, kot je določena v začasni uredbi, se potrdi ob upoštevanju spodaj navedenih sprememb.
Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’)
Tržnogospodarska obravnava („TGO“)
One of the companies granted IT claimed that it should have been granted MET and that its situation especially with regard to criteria two (accounting and auditing) and three (distortion carried-over from the former non-market economy system) has not properly been assessed during the investigation.
Ena družba, ki ji je bil odobren IO, je trdila, da bi ji bilo treba odobriti tudi TGO in da njen položaj v preiskavi ni bil pravilno ocenjen, zlasti glede merila dva (računovodstvo in revizija) in tri (izkrivljanje, preneseno iz nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva).
The company, however, did not provide any new evidence in support of its claim.
Vendar družba ni predložila novih dokazov, ki bi utemeljili zahtevek.
In the absence of new facts and other comments, the findings concerning MET as set out in recitals (17) to (25) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih novih dejstev in pripomb, se ugotovitve glede TGO iz uvodnih izjav (17) do (25) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Individual treatment (‘IT’)
Individualna obravnava („IO“)
The findings in recital (29) of the provisional Regulation with regard to the first company granted IT, i.e. Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery are hereby confirmed.
Ugotovitve v uvodni izjavi (29) začasne uredbe v zvezi s prvo družbo, ki ji je bila odobrena IO, tj. Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery, se potrdijo.
As mentioned in recital (30) of the provisional Regulation, the other company which had been granted IT had subsequently been excluded from the investigation because of non-cooperation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (30) začasne uredbe, je bila druga družba, ki ji je bila odobrena IO, zaradi nesodelovanja pozneje izključena iz preiskave.
In the absence of any reaction from the company, the finding as set out in recital (30) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenega odziva družbe, se ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave (30) začasne uredbe potrdi.
The findings below concern the determination of normal value of all exporting producers not granted MET.
Spodnje ugotovitve zadevajo določitev normalne vrednosti vseh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jim TGO ni bila odobrena.
Following further analysis of all the information available from the producer in Iran, it had to be concluded that the information was incomplete and/or inconsistent and thus could not be used as the basis for the calculation of the normal value at the definitive level.
Po nadaljnji proučitvi vseh razpoložljivih informacij, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec v Iranu, je bilo treba skleniti, da so bile informacije nepopolne in/ali neskladne in jih zato ni bilo mogoče uporabiti kot podlago pri izračunu normalne vrednosti na dokončni ravni.
It was therefore resorted to another reasonable basis for the calculation of the normal value in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo treba uporabiti drugo primerno podlago za izračun normalne vrednost v skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe.
Due to lack of information from other third countries where LAM are produced, it was considered that the data available from the complaint and from the Community industry constituted the most reasonable basis to establish normal value at the definitive level.
Ker tretje države, kjer se vzvodni mehanizmi proizvajajo, niso predložile dovolj informacij, se je štelo, da so podatki iz pritožbe ter podatki industrije Skupnosti najprimernejša podlaga za določitev normalne vrednosti na dokončni ravni.
Adjustments were made to reflect specific verified data obtained during the investigation, in particular concerning prices of raw materials and freight.
Izvedene so bile prilagoditve, da se upoštevajo določeni preverjeni podatki, pridobljeni v preiskavi, zlasti podatki o cenah surovin in prevoza.
The exporting producer granted IT claimed that errors were made in the level of SG&A and profit calculated for a related importer and that there was double counting of the SG&A applied to establish the ex-works export price.
Proizvajalec izvoznik, ki mu je bila odobrena IO, je trdil, da so bile napake narejene pri izračunu PSA-stroškov in dobička za povezanega uvoznika ter da se je dvojno štetje PSA-stroškov uporabilo za določitev izvozne cene franko tovarna.
In addition, this exporter claimed that the SG&A figures and profits from the related companies should be revised following new calculations provided by the company after the on-site visits.
Ta izvoznik je tudi trdil, da je treba podatke glede PSA-stroškov in dobičkov povezanih družb revidirati potem, ko bodo družbe po preverjanju na kraju samem predložile nove izračune.
The examination of the above claims confirmed that a clerical error occurred in the SG&A calculation.
Proučitev zgornjih trditev je potrdila, da se je pri izračunu PSA-stroškov pojavila stvarna napaka.
This error has been corrected accordingly.
Ta napaka je bila ustrezno odpravljena.
However, the new data provided by the company had to be rejected because they could not be verified any longer during the investigation.
Vendar je bilo treba nove podatke, ki jih je predložila družba, zavrniti, saj jih med preiskavo ni bilo več mogoče preveriti.
The general methodology as set out in recitals (41) and (42) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Splošna metodologija iz uvodnih izjav (41) in (42) začasne uredbe se potrdi.
The normal value established as described in recitals (16) to (18) above and the export prices, revised as explained in recitals (19) to (21), were compared on an ex-factory basis and at the same level of trade.
Normalna vrednost, ki je določena, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (16) do (18) zgoraj ter izvozne cene, revidirane, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah (19) do (21), so se primerjale na podlagi franko tovarna in isti stopnji trgovine.
In order to ensure a fair comparison between normal value and export price, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices and price comparability.
Zaradi poštene primerjave so se v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe upoštevale razlike v dejavnikih, za katere se je pokazalo, da so vplivali na cene in primerljivost cen.
The factors for which adjustments were accepted are commissions, transport, insurance, handling, loading costs, ancillary costs, and credit costs.
Dejavniki, za katere so bile sprejete prilagoditve, so stroški provizije, prevozni, zavarovalniški, manipulativni stroški, stroški natovarjanja, drugi tozadevni stroški ter stroški kredita.
Following the adjustments to normal value and to export price, the definitive dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, applicable to the exporter granted IT, should be as follows:
Po prilagoditvah normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene mora biti dokončna stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF meja Skupnosti, brez plačane dajatve:
Following provisional disclosure, no comments were received concerning the methodology for calculating the dumping margin for all other exporting producers.
Po začasnem razkritju Komisija ni prejela pripomb glede metodologije za izračun stopnje dampinga za vse druge proizvajalce izvoznike.
However, the adjustments made to normal value led to an amended definitive dumping margin of 47,4 % of the CIF Community frontier price for all other exporting producers.
Vendar pa se je zaradi prilagoditev za normalno vrednost spremenila dokončna stopnja dampinga v višini 47,4 % cene CIF meja Skupnosti za vse druge proizvajalce izvoznike.
Some interested parties claimed that one producer provisionally included in the definition of the Community production and Community industry should be excluded because of an alleged relationship with a Chinese exporting producer and because of large imports of Chinese LAM, in particular during the IP.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da je treba enega proizvajalca, začasno vključenega v opredelitev proizvodnje Skupnosti in industrije Skupnosti, zaradi domnevne povezave s kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom in velike količine uvoza kitajskih vzvodnih mehanizmov, zlasti v OP, izključiti.
Hence, they claimed that the company should be excluded both from Community production and for the purpose of assessing injury.
Trdile so, da je treba družbo izključiti iz opredelitve proizvodnje Skupnosti ter za namen ocene škode.
It is recalled that the situation of the said producer was described in detail in recitals (55) to (57) of the provisional Regulation.
Treba je opozoriti, da je stanje navedenega proizvajalca natančno opisano v uvodnih izjavah (55) do (57) začasne uredbe.
When examining again its situation in the light of the provisions of Article 4 of the basic Regulation, it has to be recalled that the producer did not behave differently from other complainant non-related Community producers.
Pri ponovni proučitvi njegovega stanja glede določb člena 4 osnovne uredbe je treba opozoriti, da se proizvajalec ni obnašal drugače kot drugi nepovezani proizvajalci Skupnosti pritožniki.
Moreover, it was found that the Community producer was not in a position neither legally nor operationally to control the exporting producer from whom it imported.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da proizvajalec Skupnosti ni mogel niti pravno niti operativno nadzorovati proizvajalca izvoznika, od katerega je uvažal.
In the absence of any new comments concerning the Community production, the provisional findings concerning the total Community production as set out in recitals (51)-(58) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo predloženih nobenih novih pripomb v zvezi s proizvodnjo Skupnosti, se potrdijo začasne ugotovitve v zvezi s celotno proizvodnjo Skupnosti, kot je določena v uvodnih izjavah (51) do (58) začasne uredbe.
One interested party argued that another Community producer should be excluded from the definition of the Community industry.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je trdila, da je treba drugega proizvajalca Skupnosti izključiti iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti.
Firstly, because the producer allegedly sells large quantities of LAM to related customers and is also using LAM for captive use.
Prvič, ker proizvajalec domnevno prodaja velike količine vzvodnih mehanizmov povezanim strankam in so namenjeni tudi lastni uporabi.
Secondly, because the said producer did not fully cooperate in the investigation, in particular, it did not submit a complete file accessible to all interested parties within the deadline.
Drugič, ker navedeni proizvajalec ni v celoti sodeloval pri preiskavi, zlasti ni predložil popolne dokumentacije, ki bi bila v določenem roku na voljo vsem zainteresiranim strankam.
After having analysed this claim, it was confirmed that the cooperation of the said producer in the investigation was not sufficient.
Po proučitvi tega zahtevka je bilo potrjeno, da navedeni proizvajalcev pri preiskavi ni zadosti sodeloval.
This producer should hence be excluded from the definition of the Community industry and its output should also be excluded from the Community production.
Tega proizvajalca je treba zato izključiti iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, njegovo proizvodnjo pa iz opredelitve proizvodnje Skupnosti.
The production of the four remaining Community producers which cooperated fully in the investigation and supported the complaint was established at around 205 million units of LAM during the IP.
Proizvodnja štirih preostalih proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ki so pri preiskavi v celoti sodelovali in podprli pritožbo, je bila določena na okoli 205 milijonov enot vzvodnih mehanizmov v OP.
The above four Community producers represent around 75 % of the total Community production.
Štirje zgoraj navedeni proizvajalci Skupnosti predstavljajo približno 75 % celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti.
Hence, these companies are sufficiently representative to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
Te družbe so zato zadosti reprezentativne, da predstavljajo industrijo Skupnosti v smislu členov 4(1) in 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
In this Regulation the absolute figures in the tables below could not always be provided.
V tej uredbi ni bilo vedno mogoče zagotoviti absolutnih številk, navedenih v spodnjih tabelah.
These data cannot be disclosed because one Community producer was excluded between the provisional and the definitive stage, hence its data could be derived by comparison.
Teh podatkov ni mogoče razkriti, ker je bil en proizvajalec Skupnosti izključen med začasno in dokončno fazo, zato je bilo mogoče njegove podatke pridobiti s primerjavo.
Some interested parties alleged that the volume of Community consumption was wrongly calculated.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da je bil obseg potrošnje Skupnosti izračunan napačno.
In particular, they addressed the issue that the data concerning the imports from the country concerned was based on the complaint.
Zlasti so izpostavili dejstvo, da so podatki v zvezi z uvozom iz zadevne države temeljili na pritožbi.