natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, as it has been explained under recital 64 of the provisional Regulation, in view of the unprecedented size of the samples the Commission concluded that individual examination of additional exporting producers would have been unduly burdensome and would have prevented completion of the investigation in good time.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 64 začasne uredbe, je Komisija glede na neprimerljivo velikost vzorcev dejansko sklenila, da bi bila individualna preiskava dodatnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov preveč obremenjujoča in bi preprečila pravočasni zaključek preiskave.
Finally, parties claimed that the selection of representative domestic sales in the sample is inappropriate since none of the exporters qualified for MET.
Nazadnje so stranke trdile, da je vključitev reprezentativne domače prodaje v vzorec neprimerna, ker noben izvoznik ni upravičen do TGO.
This argument was however deemed irrelevant since the decision on MET is taken subsequently to the selection of the sample.
Vendar pa se zdi ta utemeljitev nepomembna, ker se sklep o TGO sprejme šele po izbiri vzorca.
The claim was therefore rejected and in the absence of any further comments on this issue, it is concluded that the samples were representative.
Trditev je bila zato zavrnjena, brez nadaljnjih pripomb v zvezi s tem pa se sklene, da so bili vzorci reprezentativni.
SAMPLING FOR COMMUNITY PRODUCERS
VZORČENJE ZA PROIZVAJALCE SKUPNOSTI
Various interested parties claimed a breach of the Article 17 of the basic Regulation, alleging that the sample of Community producers is not representative.
Različne zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da je zaradi nereprezentativnosti vzorca proizvajalcev Skupnosti kršen člen 17 osnovne uredbe.
This claim is based on the fact that only ten companies were selected in the sample, and that those companies merely represent 10 % of the overall production volume of the complainants, and only a minor proportion of the overall Community production — i.e. less than 5 % — given that the complainants in this case represent slightly more than 40 % of the overall Community production.
Ta trditev temelji na dejstvu, da je bilo v vzorec vključenih le deset družb, ki predstavljajo komaj 10 % celotnega obsega proizvodnje pritožnikov ter le manjši delež celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti, tj. manj kot 5 %, glede na to, da predstavljajo pritožniki v tem primeru nekoliko več kot 40 % celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti.
Moreover it is claimed that certain trends observed for the sampled Community producers are not similar to those observed for the overall complainants, and that the sample would thus not be representative.
Trdile so tudi, da določena ugotovljena gibanja za vzorčene proizvajalce Skupnosti niso podobna tistim, ki so bila ugotovljena za pritožnike na splošno, in da vzorec zato ni reprezentativen.
An association of importers also claimed that the sample of Community producers is not statistically valid, and that consequently a negligible proportion of Community producers were subject to verification visits.
Eno združenje uvoznikov je tudi trdilo, da vzorec proizvajalcev Skupnosti statistično ni veljaven in da je bil zato pri preveritvenih obiskih preverjen zanemarljiv delež proizvodnje Skupnosti.
In this respect, it is recalled that Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that investigations may be limited to samples which are either statistically valid, or which constitute the largest representative volume of production, sales, or exports which can be reasonably investigated.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da člen 17 osnovne uredbe določa, da se lahko preiskave omejijo na vzorce, ki so bodisi statistično veljavni bodisi pomenijo največji reprezentativni obseg proizvodnje, prodaje ali izvoza, ki ga je mogoče razumno preiskati.
It is clear from the wording of this provision that there is no quantitative indication or threshold as to what constitutes the level of the representative volume.
Iz besedila te določbe je jasno razvidno, da ni količinskih kazalnikov ali pragov, ki bi določali stopnjo reprezentativnega obsega.
The only indication is that such volume should be limited to what can reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Edini kazalnik je, da je treba tak obseg omejiti na to, kar je mogoče v razpoložljivem času razumno preiskati.
Due to the specific circumstances of the case, i.e. given that the Community industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable that the companies in the sample cover a relatively small portion of the overall Community production.
Zaradi posebnih okoliščin tega primera, tj. dejstva, da je industrija Skupnosti zelo razdrobljena, morajo družbe v vzorcu pokrivati relativno majhen delež celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti.
As explained in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation the Commission selected a sample based primarily on the size in terms of production volume, but also took into account the geographical location of producers in order to ensure that the sample be representative in that respect.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 65 začasne uredbe, je Komisija prvotno izbrala vzorec na podlagi velikosti, tj. obsega proizvodnje, vendar pa je upoštevala tudi geografski položaj proizvajalcev, s čimer se zagotovi reprezentativnost vzorca.
The number of companies selected in the sample had however to be limited to what could be reasonably investigated within the time available, i.e. 10 companies in this case.
Vendar je bilo treba družbe, vključene v vzorec, omejiti na tako število, ki ga je mogoče v razpoložljivem času razumno preveriti.
Given the high degree of fragmentation of the industry, and given that the larger producers were selected in the sample, further increasing the number of companies would in any event not have had a significant impact on the proportion of the sample as compared to the overall Community production.
Glede na visoko raven razdrobljenosti industrije in velikega števila proizvajalcev, izbranih v vzorec, nadaljnje povečanje števila družb v nobenem primeru ne bi znatno vplivalo na delež vzorca v primerjavi s celotno proizvodnjo Skupnosti.
In this context it is further noted, contrary to the allegation made by some parties, that there is no legal obligation to include small and medium sized enterprises as defined by the relevant EC law in the sample as follows from the wording of Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.
V tem smislu je treba v nasprotju s trditvami nekaterih strank tudi opomniti, da ni pravne obveznosti vključitve malih in srednjih podjetij v vzorec v smislu ustrezne zakonodaje ES, kot izhaja iz besedila člena 17(1) osnovne uredbe.
As explained above, the choice of the sample should be either statistically valid or based on representative volume.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, mora biti izbira vzorca bodisi statistično veljavna ali pa temeljiti na reprezentativnem obsegu.
Since this second method was chosen in this case, the claim that the sample is not statistically valid was rejected.
Ker je bila v tem primeru izbrana druga metoda, je bila trditev, da vzorec ni statistično veljaven, zavrnjena.
Likewise, the fact that allegedly some trends observed for the sampled Community producers were not similar to those observed for the overall complainants and that a small proportion of Community producers were subject to verification visits do not constitute legally valid arguments to put the validity of the sample into question.
Podobno dejstvo, da nekatera gibanja, ugotovljena za vzorčene proizvajalce Skupnosti, naj ne bi bila podobna gibanjem, ugotovljenim za pritožnike na splošno, ter da so bili pri majhnem deležu proizvajalcev Skupnosti opravljeni preveritveni obiski, ne pomeni pravno veljavne utemeljitve, ki bi podvomila v veljavnost vzorca.
For the reasons explained above, the claims made by the various parties were rejected and the legal validity of the sample is hereby confirmed since the sample is representative and was selected in full compliance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi zgoraj pojasnjenih razlogov so bile trditve različnih strank zavrnjene in pravna veljavnost vzorca se potrdi, saj je vzorec reprezentativen in je bil izbran v popolni skladnosti s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (‘MET’)
TRŽNOGOSPODARSKA OBRAVNAVA („TGO“)
General remark
Splošna opomba
Certain interested parties claimed that the Commission failed to disclose on an individual basis for each of the non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporters, why they are considered not to be entitled to MET.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da Komisiji za vsakega nevzorčenega kitajskega in vietnamskega izvoznika posebej ni uspelo pojasniti, zakaj ni upravičen do TGO.
According to their claim, which they reiterated upon definitive disclosure, the Commission is obliged to make individual determinations with regard to submitted MET claims irrespectively whether an exporter is sampled or not.
Glede na njihovo trditev, ki so jo ponovili ob dokončnem razkritju, mora Komisija sprejeti posamezne odločitve glede predloženih zahtevekov TGO za vsakega izvoznika posebej, ne glede na to, ali je izvoznik vzorčen ali ne.
They considered that the methodology applied deprives the non-sampled companies from their right to an individual assessment and constitutes a violation of Article 2(7)(b) and 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Menile so, da je bila nevzorčenim družbam z uporabljeno metodologijo odvzeta pravica do individualne ocene in da ta metodologija pomeni kršitev člena 2(7)(b) in 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
However, it is considered that the existing provision on sampling (Article 17 of the basic Regulation), fully encompasses the situation of companies claiming MET.
Vendar se šteje, da obstoječa določba o vzorčenju (člen 17 osnovne uredbe) v celoti zajema položaj družb, ki zahtevajo TGO.
Indeed, whether it be in market economy countries or in economies in transition, exporters are by the nature of the sampling exercise denied individual assessment and the conclusions reached for the sample are extended to them.
Ne glede na to, ali gre za države s tržnim gospodarstvom ali z gospodarstvom v tranziciji, se izvoznikom po naravi vzorčenja zavrne individualna ocena, sklepne ugotovitve glede vzorca pa se razširijo tudi nanje.
Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out a general method to deal with situations where an individual examination is no longer possible due to the high number of companies involved i.e. the use of a representative sample.
Člen 17 osnovne uredbe določa splošno metodo za obravnavanje primerov, ko individualna preiskava zaradi velikega števila vključenih družb, tj. uporaba reprezentativnega vzorca, ni več mogoča.
There is no reason why the sampling method could not equally be applied to the situation where the high number of companies involved includes a high number of companies requesting MET/IT.
Ni razloga, zakaj metod vzorčenja ne bi bilo mogoče enako uporabiti v primeru, ko veliko število vključenih družb zajema veliko število družb, ki zahtevajo TGO/IO.
Like in any other sampling case, a weighted average of all sampled companies is established, regardless of the methodology applied for the dumping calculation in respect of each company as a result of the MET/IT assessment.
Kot v vsakem drugem primeru vzorčenja se tehtano povprečje vseh vzorčenih družb določi ne glede na metodologijo za izračun dampinga glede posamezne družbe, ki je bila uporabljena kot posledica ocene TGO/IO.
The key rationale of sampling is to balance administrative necessities to allow a case assessment in due time and within the margin of mandatory deadlines, with an individualised analysis to the best extent possible.
Ključno načelo vzorčenja je, da se administrativni postopki, potrebni za pravočasno oceno primera, izvedeno v obveznih rokih, čim bolj uskladijo z individualno analizo.
Finally, it is recalled that the number of requests for MET in this case was so substantial that an individual examination of the requests — as sometimes done in other cases — was administratively impossible.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da je bilo število zahtevkov za TGO v tem primeru tako veliko, da individualna proučitev zahtevkov – kot je bilo včasih storjeno v drugih primerih – administrativno ni bila izvedljiva.
Therefore, it was considered reasonable to apply equally to all non-sampled companies the weighted average margin resulting from all the companies in the sample with no distinction being made between companies obtaining MET/IT or not.
Zato se je štelo za razumno, da se za vse nevzorčene družbe enako uporablja stopnja tehtanega povprečja vseh družb, vključenih v vzorec, pri čemer se ne sme razlikovati med družbami, ki jim je bil TGO/IO odobren, in družbami, ki jim TGO/IO ni bil odobren.
It has also been alleged that the dumping calculation was insufficiently reliable because sampling of MET claims had been used.
Trdilo se je tudi, da izračun dampinga ni bil dovolj zanesljiv, ker je bilo uporabljeno vzorčenje zahtevkov za TGO.
This claim has to be rejected.
To trditev je treba zavrniti.
First of all, there was no sampling of MET claims but sampling of exporting producers.
Prvič, ni šlo za vzorčenje zahtevkov za TGO, ampak vzorčenje proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Secondly, the provisions on sampling are designed to ensure a sufficiently reliable determination as to whether or not there is dumping in a case of a large number of exporting producers.
Drugič, določbe o vzorčenju so osnovane tako, da zagotavljajo dovolj zanesljivo ugotovitev o tem, ali gre v primeru velikega števila proizvajalcev izvoznikov za dampinga ali ne.
Thirdly, in cases where exporting producers have also submitted MET claims there is no reason to conclude that the use of the routinely applied sampling technique would lead to an insufficiently reliable determination.
Tretjič, v primerih, ko so proizvajalci izvozniki predložili tudi zahtevke za TGO, ni razloga za sklep, da bi uporaba običajnih tehnik vzorčenja pripeljala do nezanesljive ugotovitve.
Indeed, it runs counter the very concept of sampling to argue that because of the fact that (non-sampled) exporters should be classified as either MET or non-MET, a sample of such a population would per se be unrepresentative.
Dejansko trditev, da zato ker je treba (nevzorčene) izvoznike uvrstiti kot tiste s TGO ali tiste brez TGO, vzorec takšne populacije kot tak ni reprezentativen, nasprotuje bistvu vzorčenja.
As in any other anti-dumping investigation, the individual situation of exporters is never identical.
Kot pri vsaki drugi protidampinški preiskavi položaj posameznih izvoznikov ni nikoli enak.
Important differences can exist between producers and sampling can nevertheless be applied.
Med proizvajalci so lahko pomembne razlike, vzorčenje pa se lahko kljub temu uporabi.
Fourthly, the classification of a company as being non-MET means only that the normal value cannot be established on the basis of the company's own data but that a viable alternative has to be used.
Četrtič, uvrstitev družbe med tiste brez TGO pomeni le, da normalne vrednosti ni mogoče določiti na podlagi lastnih podatkov družbe, ampak da je treba uporabiti druge razpoložljive možnosti.
However, to resort to viable alternatives has also to be done in other important areas of the dumping determination, see e.g. Article 2(1) and Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Teh se je treba poslužiti tudi na drugih pomembnih področjih ugotavljanja dampinga, glej npr. člen 2(1) in člen 2(6) osnovne uredbe.
Fifthly, the representativity of the sample is further underlined by the fact that the governments of the exporting countries themselves have proposed the vast majority of the companies chosen in the sample.
Petič, reprezentativnost vzorca poudarja tudi dejstvo, da so vlade držav izvoznic same predlagale veliko večino družb, vključenih v vzorec.
In other words, they themselves have considered these samples as representative for the totality of their exporting producers.
Povedano drugače, same so te vzorce štele za reprezentativne za vse njihove proizvajalce izvoznike.
Some exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam still argued that the Commission did make individual MET assessments in previous cases where the number of exporting producers was high.
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama so še vedno trdili, da je Komisija v prejšnjih primerih, ko je bilo število proizvajalcev izvoznikov veliko, TGO ocenila za vsakega proizvajalca posebej.
In such cases, e.g. ‘polyester apparel filaments’ (Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 of 12 September 2005) [5], individual MET assessments had been made although for the purpose of the dumping assessment sampling techniques in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation had been used.
V takih primerih, kot denimo pri „tkanini iz poliestrskih filamentov“ (Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1487/2005 z dne 12. septembra 2005) [5], je bila individualna ocena TGO opravljena, čeprav so se za ocenitev dampinga uporabile tehnike vzorčenja v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
In that regard, however, it is recalled that in the above mentioned case an individual examination of the MET requests was found to be still feasible, while this was not the case in this investigation.
V zvezi s tem pa je treba opozoriti, da je bila v zgoraj navedenem primeru individualna proučitev zahtevkov TGO še vedno izvedljiva, kar pa ne velja za to preiskavo.
Moreover, it is noted that in the above mentioned case, in accordance with the rules on sampling, companies not selected in the sample but awarded MET were given the weighted average margin of companies with MET in the sample, i.e. they were not granted any individual margin but they were granted a weighted average margin found for companies with MET.
Opomniti je treba tudi, da je bilo v zgoraj navedenem primeru v skladu s pravili o vzorčenju družbam, ki niso bile vključene v vzorec, a jim je bil TGO odobren, dodeljena stopnja tehtanega povprečja družb s TGO, vključenim v vzorec, kar pomeni, da jim ni bila odobrena individualna stopnja, ampak stopnja tehtanega povprečja, ugotovljena za družbe s TGO.
In previous cases where sampling was used and MET was claimed by cooperating exporters, the numbers involved were such as to allow for an individual examination for each claim.
V prejšnjih primerih, ko se je uporabilo vzorčenje in so sodelujoči izvozniki zahtevali TGO, je bilo število vpletenih tako, da je bila mogoča individualna proučitev za vsak zahtevek posebej.
In view of the unprecedented number of MET requests received it was not possible to assess each claim individually.
Glede na neprimerljivo veliko število prejetih zahtevkov za TGO ni bilo mogoče oceniti vsakega zahtevka posebej.
Other exporters, outside and inside the sample, re-iterated that they should have been granted MET.
Drugi izvozniki, vključeni v vzorec ali ne, so ponovno poudarili, da jim mora biti TGO odobren.
To support their claims, some of them submitted their Articles of Associations (AoA) in order to demonstrate that their case was not different from Golden Step, the only company that was awarded MET.
V podporo svojim trditvam so nekateri od njih predložili svoje statute, s katerimi bi dokazali, da se njihov primer ne razlikuje od družbe Golden Step, edine družbe, ki ji je bil TGO odobren.
In this respect it is noted that the sampling provisions of Article 17 of the basic Regulation were applied in this proceeding.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so se pri tem postopku uporabljale določbe člena 17 osnovne uredbe glede vzorčenja.
Subsequent submissions of non-sampled exporting producers were not examined as, in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, this would have been unduly burdensome and would have prevented completion of the investigation in good time.
Zato naknadno predloženi zahtevki nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov niso bili proučeni, ker bi bilo to skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe preveč obremenjujoče in bi preprečilo pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
As regards subsequent claims of sampled companies these are dealt in the relevant paragraphs below dealing with specific points relating to each of the two countries concerned by this proceeding.
Naknadne trditve vzorčenih družb so podrobno obravnavane v odstavkih v nadaljevanju, ki zadevajo posebne točke, povezane z vsako od dveh držav, ki ju ta postopek zadeva.
Some of the exporting producers argued that the Commission did not make an assessment on MET within three months after the proceeding was initiated, as provided by Article 2(7)(c) last subparagraph of the basic Regulation.
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da Komisija ni ocenila TGO v treh mesecih po začetku postopka, kot je določeno v zadnjem pododstavku člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Although the MET assessment was made later than three months after the initiation of the case, exporting producers in the sample were provided with separate disclosures on their MET status and given full right of defence.
Čeprav je bila ocena TGO izvedena pozneje kot tri mesece po začetku postopka, so bila proizvajalcem izvoznikom v vzorcu predložena ločena razkritja o njihovem statusu TGO in dana jim je bila popolna pravica do obrambe.
Certainly, parties are not negatively affected by any MET determination made before the imposition of provisional measures.
Vsekakor pa noben TGO, določen pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov, na stranke ne vpliva negativno.
Some of the exporting producers which already requested individual examination reiterated their request.
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so že zahtevali individualno preiskavo, so ponovno predložili zahtevek.
However, for the reason explained in recital 64 of the provisional Regulation, no individual examination of exporting producers in the PRC nor Vietnam could be granted.
Vendar zaradi vzroka, pojasnjenega v uvodni izjavi 64 začasne uredbe, ni bilo mogoče odobriti nobene individualne preiskave proizvajalcev izvoznikov niti v LRK niti v Vietnamu.
Consequently, as explained in recitals 53 to 63 of the provisional Regulation, in view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC and in Vietnam which cooperated, a representative sample was used to establish the duty to be applied to the cooperating exporters not selected in the sample like in all anti-dumping cases.
Zato je bil, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 53 do 63 začasne uredbe, glede na veliko število sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK in Vietnamu kot v vseh protidampinških zadevah uporabljen reprezentativen vzorec, da se določi dajatev, ki jo je treba uporabiti za sodelujoče izvoznike, ki niso bili vključeni v vzorec.
MET determination regarding exporting producers in the PRC
Določitev TGO v zvezi s proizvajalci izvozniki v LRK
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the 12 Chinese exporting producers selected in the sample and verified on-spot claimed that they should have been granted MET and reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov je dvanajst sodelujočih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključenih v vzorec in preverjenih na kraju samem, trdilo, da bi jim moral biti odobren TGO, in ponovno poudarili utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili prej.
One out of these 12 companies, namely Golden Step (‘GS’) also claimed upon provisional disclosure a substantial change further to the examination of its MET claim and provided evidence.
Ena od teh dvanajstih družb, in sicer Golden Step („GS“), je ob začasnem razkritju prav tako zahtevala znatno spremembo po proučitvi njenega zahtevka za TGO in predložila dokaze.
It is recalled that GS's MET claim was rejected because it failed to meet criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bil zahtevek za TGO družbe GS zavrnjen, ker merilo 1 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe ni bilo izpolnjeno.
In particular, the rejection was based on the existence of an export obligation that entailed that GS was not free to determine its sales quantities without significant State interference.
Zavrnitev je zlasti temeljila na izvozni obveznosti, zaradi česar družba GS ni mogla sama določiti svojih prodajnih količin brez znatnega vmešavanja države.