natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, an average including world market prices was used to determine the adjustment.
Zato se je za določitev prilagoditve uporabilo povprečje, ki vključuje cene na svetovnem trgu.
The relevant calculation was made separately for the two exporting countries.
Za obe državi izvoznici je bil ločeno narejen ustrezen izračun.
The value difference of leather inputs was multiplied by the share of leather in the total cost of production.
Razlika v vrednosti uporabljenega usnja je bila pomnožena z deležem usnja v celotnih proizvodnih stroških.
The subsequent adjustments upwards to the normal value amounted to 21,6 % (PRC) and 16,4 % (Vietnam).
Naknadna prilagoditev normalne vrednosti navzgor je znašala 21,6 % (LRK) in 16,4 % (Vietnam).
Some parties argued that it was not appropriate to make adjustments on the leather quality where it was found that the cost of production in the export countries was distorted due to the fact that all but one of the exporters in those countries had not been granted MET.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da v primerih, ko so proizvodni stroški v državah izvoznicah izkrivljeni, prilagoditve zaradi razlik v kakovosti usnja niso ustrezne, saj razen enega, nobenemu od izvoznikov v teh državah ni bil odobren TGO.
It is true that MET was rejected also because state influence was found that impacted on costs/prices.
Res je, da je bil razlog za zavrnitev TGO tudi ugotovljeno vplivanje države, ki je imelo učinek na stroške/cene.
However, as noted above, it was found that leather had been imported from market economy countries.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bilo navedeno usnje uvoženo iz držav s tržno ekonomijo.
Some parties argued that the Commission did not disclose the exact figures on which basis the adjustment was calculated and why the leather adjustment had to be revised after the provisional determination.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da Komisija ni razkrila natančnih podatkov glede osnove za izračun prilagoditev in glede vprašanja, zakaj je bilo treba prilagoditev po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov popraviti.
However, the revision on the leather adjustment is explained above.
Vendar pa je popravek prilagoditve zaradi razlik v usnju pojasnjen zgoraj.
Furthermore, the Commission disclosed to all companies concerned by this proceeding the necessary details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures.
Poleg tega je Komisija vsem zadevnim družbam v tem postopku razkrila potrebne podrobnosti v zvezi z bistvenimi dejstvi in premisleki, na podlagi katerih je nameravala priporočiti uvedbo dokončnih ukrepov.
Some interested parties claimed that no research and development (‘R&D’) adjustment should have been applied on the normal value, because similar amounts of R&D were incurred by the Chinese and Vietnamese producers.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da se normalne vrednosti ne bi smele prilagoditi za raziskave in razvoj („R&R“), ker so imeli kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci z R&R podobne stroške.
However, it was found that R&D costs incurred by the sampled producers from the countries concerned related only to production R&D, whereas the Brazilian R&D covered design and samples of new footwear models, i.e. such type of R&D is different and therefore it is considered necessary to keep this adjustment.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da so se stroški za R&R, ki so jih imeli vzorčeni proizvajalci iz zadevnih držav, nanašali le na R&R v zvezi s proizvodnjo, medtem ko so brazilski R&R zajemali oblikovanje in vzorce novih modelov obutve; take vrste stroški za R&R pa se razlikujejo, zato se šteje, da je treba to prilagoditev ohraniti.
One other party also claimed that an adjustment should be made to take into account that the profit made with sales to original equipment manufacturers (‘OEM’) generates less profit than other sales.
Druga stranka je zahtevala tudi, da je potrebna prilagoditev, s katero bi se upoštevalo, da je dobiček iz prodaje proizvajalcev originalne opreme („POO“) nižji kot dobiček iz druge prodaje.
However, this allegation was not supported by the findings of the investigation in the Brazilian companies where such difference did not exist.
Vendar ugotovitve raziskave v brazilskih družbah navedene zahteve niso podprle, saj tam take razlike ni bilo.
Moreover, any difference between sales to OEM and own brand sales, is already taken into account in the adjustment made to allow for the R&D cost difference.
Poleg tega pa je vsaka razlika med prodajo POO in prodajo pod lastno blagovno znamko že upoštevana pri prilagoditvi za razliko v stroških R&R.
It is further noted that an adjustment with regard to children's shoes was necessary.
Potrebna pa je bila prilagoditev v zvezi z otroško obutvijo.
None of the Brazilian producers manufactured children's shoes.
Noben od brazilskih proizvajalcev ni izdeloval otroške obutve.
It can be observed, e.g. by Eurostat import data, that children's shoes are in general cheaper than adults' shoes.
Ugotavlja se, npr. na podlagi Eurostatovih podatkov o uvozu, da so otroški čevlji na splošno cenejši kot čevlji za odrasle.
This can be ascribed to the smaller size of children's shoes and consequently smaller quantity of raw material required for their production.
To se lahko pripiše manjši velikosti otroških čevljev in posledično manjši količini surovin, potrebnih za proizvodnjo.
Consequently, an adjustment was applied on the basis of the proportional price differences between children's and adult's shoes sold by the Community industry.
Zato je bila narejena prilagoditev na podlagi sorazmerne razlike v cenah med otroškimi čevlji in čevlji za odrasle, ki jih prodaja industrija Skupnosti.
The adjustment amounts to 33,2 % on the normal value.
Normalna vrednost se je prilagodila za 33,2 % navzgor.
Some parties claimed that this adjustment has not been adequately explained.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da ta prilagoditev ni bila ustrezno pojasnjena.
Furthermore, it was stated that the only factor justifying the price difference is the difference in sizes and subsequently the amount of raw materials used.
Poleg tega je bilo navedeno, da je edini dejavnik, ki upravičuje razliko v ceni, razlika v velikostih in posledično v količini uporabljenih surovin.
Such an assumption was erroneous according to those parties.
Te stranke so menile, da je bila ta domneva napačna.
In this respect it is noted that the adjustment made with regard to children's shoes was fully disclosed to the parties and is set out above.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da je bila prilagoditev v zvezi z otroškimi čevlji strankam v celoti pojasnjena in je navedena zgoraj.
Furthermore, parties that regarded this adjustment erroneous failed to provide any better alternative method that could be used and ensure comparison of export prices and normal values on a fair basis.
Stranke, ki so menile, da je ta prilagoditev napačna, pa niso predlagale boljše metode, ki bi omogočila primerjavo izvoznih cen in normalne vrednosti na pošteni osnovi.
In the absence of further comments the findings in recitals 131 to 133 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nadaljnjih pripomb, se ugotovitve uvodnih izjav 131 do 133 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Some parties argued that the PCN scheme did not allow for a fair comparison.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da sistem ŠOI ne zagotavlja poštene primerjave.
In particular, parties claimed that the PCN scheme used was too broad and not based on product-specific physical characteristics.
Trdile so, da je bil uporabljeni sistem ŠOI zastavljen preširoko in da ni temeljil na posebnih fizičnih lastnostih izdelka.
According to those parties this allegedly constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the ADA.
Po mnenju navedenih strank naj bi to pomenilo kršitev člena 2(4) Protidampinškega sporazuma.
It was further argued that general adjustments (on the leather quality) did not provide sufficient compensation for this alleged flaw.
Trdilo se je tudi, da splošne prilagoditve (zaradi razlik v kakovosti usnja) niso zagotovile zadostnega nadomestila za navedeno domnevno pomanjkljivost.
These arguments had to be rejected.
Te utemeljitve je bilo treba zavrniti.
Indeed Article 2(4) of the ADA, as well as Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, mandates a fair comparison.
Člen 2(4) Protidampinškega sporazuma in člen 2(10) osnovne uredbe dejansko zahtevata pošteno primerjavo.
However, these provisions do not provide any details with regard to the design of PCNs.
Vendar pa te določbe ne vsebujejo podrobnosti v zvezi z oblikovanjem ŠOI.
It is recalled that it is the long-standing practice of the EC to facilitate the comparability between the product concerned and the like product by using PCNs which subdivide the product into types/models according to certain features or technical specifications.
Opozarja se, da je dolgotrajna praksa Evropske Skupnosti olajšati primerljivost med zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom z uporabo ŠOI, s čimer se izdelki razdelijo na podtipe/modele glede na določene značilnosti ali tehnične lastnosti.
In the present case five such elements have been taken into consideration, i.e. style of footwear, type of consumer, type of footwear, material of the outer sole and lining.
V sedanjem primeru je bilo upoštevanih pet takih elementov, tj. stil obutve, vrsta potrošnika, vrsta obutve, material zunanjega podplata in podloge.
These elements sufficiently reflect the essential characteristics of the product concerned.
Ti elementi v zadostni meri odražajo bistvene značilnosti zadevnega izdelka.
Furthermore, it is noted that no legal obligation is set neither by the basic Regulation nor by the ADA to make use of any PCNs in anti-dumping investigations.
Poleg tega se opozarja, da niti osnovna uredba niti Protidampinški sporazum ne določata pravne obveznosti uporabe kakršnih koli ŠOI pri protidampinških preiskavah.
In the present case, in line with the principle of a fair comparison, one and the same PCN scheme has been consistently used to classify models of the product concerned manufactured and sold by producers in the Community, the export countries and the analogue country, for the sake of comparing Community prices, export prices and normal values on a fair basis.
V sedanjem primeru je bil v skladu z načelom poštene primerjave za uvrstitev modelov zadevnega izdelka, ki ga izdelujejo in prodajajo proizvajalci v Skupnosti, izvoznih državah in primerljivi državi, dosledno uporabljen en sam sistem ŠOI, da bi zagotovili pošteno primerjavo cen Skupnosti, izvoznih cen in normalnih vrednosti.
Furthermore, it was found that indeed the leather quality issue, which was not covered by the PCN scheme affected the prices and price comparability of the product concerned.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da je vprašanje kakovosti usnja, ki ga sistem ŠOI ne zajema, dejansko vplivalo na cene in primerljivost cen zadevnega izdelka.
Leather usually makes up for 50 % or more of a leather shoe's total cost of production.
Usnje ponavadi predstavlja do 50 % ali več skupnih stroškov proizvodnje usnjenega čevlja.
Depending on the type, quality and quantity of leather used, the leather cost may vary to a significant degree but the cost differences were found to be reflected accordingly in sales prices.
Stroški usnja znatno nihajo glede na vrsto, kakovost in količino uporabljenega usnja, vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da se razlike v stroških ustrezno odražajo v prodajnih cenah.
For the purposes of comparing normal value with the export prices and for the undercutting/underselling calculations, an appropriate adjustment for differences in the physical characteristics was made in line with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Za namene primerjave normalne vrednosti z izvoznimi cenami in za izračun nelojalnega nižanja cen ter prenizkih prodajnih cen je bila v skladu s členom 2(10)(a) osnovne uredbe narejena ustrezna prilagoditev za razlike v fizičnih značilnostih.
Other parties observed huge price differences within certain PCNs, which in their view indicated a flaw in the PCN scheme.
Druge stranke so opozorile na velike razlike v cenah med nekaterimi ŠOI, kar je po njihovem mnenju kazalo na pomanjkljivost sistema ŠOI.
The price differences could be due to various circumstances like market fluctuations, specific price pressure in case of oversupply etc. and willingness to dump etc. In any event, what matters with regard to the application of the PCN scheme is that is consistently applied for all parties concerned by the case.
Razlog za razlike v cenah bi lahko bile različne okoliščine, kot so nihanja trga, poseben cenovni pritisk v primeru prevelike ponudbe ter pripravljenost na damping. V vsakem primeru je v zvezi z uporabo sistema ŠOI pomembno to, da se je dosledno uporabljal za vse stranke, ki jih primer zadeva.
Price differences can be due to a number of factors, such as fashion trends and market psychology, which do not necessarily put into question the comparability of products within the same PCN.
Na razlike v ceni bi lahko vplivali številni dejavniki, kot so modni trendi in tržna psihologija, ki pa niso nujno razlog za dvom o primerljivosti izdelkov znotraj istih ŠOI.
More importantly, the parties failed to identify any better and yet practical methodology to facilitate the comparability.
Bolj pomembno pa je, da stranke niso predlagale nobenih boljših in obenem praktičnih metodologij, s katerimi bi olajšali primerljivost.
As already noted any price differences due to different leather qualities have been taken into account by making appropriate adjustments.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, so bile pri ustreznih popravkih upoštevane vse razlike v cenah, ki so posledica razlik v kakovosti usnja.
The claim had therefore to be rejected.
Trditev je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
Other parties argued that since it was decided to exclude STAF from the scope of the product concerned this footwear type should have been identified separately by the PCN scheme.
Glede na to, da je bila obutev STAF izključena iz obsega zadevnega izdelka, so druge stranke zahtevale, da bi morali to vrsto obutve v sistemu ŠOI posebej opredeliti.
When in the present case the need arose to exclude STAF from the product concerned scope, a reasonable and consistent methodology was applied vis-à-vis all exporting producers to exclude their respective STAF sales from the scope of the investigation.
Ko se je v sedanjem primeru pojavila potreba po izključitvi obutve STAF iz obsega zadevnega izdelka, je bila pri vseh proizvajalcih izvoznikih uporabljena smiselna in dosledna metodologija za izključitev njihove prodaje STAF iz obsega preiskave.
The intention to exclude STAF from the scope of the product concerned was communicated to all parties concerned long before the provisional disclosure took place.
O namenu izključitve STAF iz obsega zadevnega izdelka so bile vse stranke obveščene veliko pred začasnim razkritjem.
Neither after that communication nor upon disclosure of the provisional findings has any exporting producer submitted revised data which would have allowed a better identification of its STAF sales in its transaction listings.
Niti po tem obvestilu niti po razkritju začasnih ugotovitev ni noben proizvajalec izvoznik predložil popravljenih podatkov, ki bi v njihovih seznamih transakcij omogočili lažjo opredelitev njihove prodaje STAF.
Under these circumstances, the PCN methodology used in order to exclude STAF sales is deemed reasonable and appropriate.
V teh okoliščinah je metodologija ŠOI, ki je bila uporabljena za izključitev prodaje STAF, smiselna in ustrezna.
Some interested parties claimed that not distinguishing between cooperating companies and non-cooperating companies gives a bonus for non-cooperation.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da se v primeru nerazlikovanja med sodelujočimi družbami in nesodelujočimi družbami nagrajuje nesodelovanje.
However, as explained in recital 139 of the provisional Regulation, the level of cooperation was high and consequently, consistent with standard practice, it was considered appropriate to set the dumping margin for any non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the weighted average dumping margin established for cooperating exporting producers in the sample in the countries concerned.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 139 začasne uredbe, pa je bila raven sodelovanja visoka, zato se je v skladu z običajno prakso zdelo primerno, da se za vse nesodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike določi stopnja dampinga na ravni tehtane povprečne stopnje dampinga, določene za sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike v vzorcu v zadevnih državah.
In the absence of comments the general methodology used to establish the dumping margins as described in recitals 134 to 143 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih pripomb, se potrdi splošna metodologija, uporabljena za določitev stopenj dampinga, kakor je opisana v uvodnih izjavah 134 do 143 začasne uredbe.
the dumping margin for GS is 9,7 %, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border;
Stopnja dampinga za družbo GS znaša 9,7 %, izraženo kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF na meji Skupnosti.
the definitive country wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border is 28,9 %.
Dokončna stopnja dampinga na ravni države, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF na meji Skupnosti, znaša 28,9 %.
the definitive country wide dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border is 70,1 %.
Dokončna stopnja dampinga na ravni države, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF na meji Skupnosti, znaša 70,1 %.
As at the provisional stage, and in view of the above definitive conclusions concerning the product scope, all figures related to STAF have been excluded from the data analysed below.
Kakor v začasni fazi in glede na zgornje dokončne sklepne ugotovitve glede obsega izdelka so bili vsi podatki, povezani z obutvijo STAF, izključeni iz podatkov, analiziranih v nadaljevanju.
Following the request of certain exporting producers, it is hereby confirmed that such exclusion has been equally applied to both the imports from the countries concerned and those from the other third countries as well as to the data relating to the Community industry.
V skladu z zahtevo nekaterih proizvajalcev izvoznikov se potrdi, da so bili izdelki STAF izključeni tako iz podatkov o uvozu iz zadevnih držav in tretjih držav kot tudi iz podatkov, ki se nanašajo na industrijo Skupnosti.
However, given the above definitive conclusion that children's footwear should be included in the scope of the product concerned, the definitive analysis of injury has been made for the totality of the product concerned, i.e. including children's shoes.
Glede na zgornji dokončni sklep, da mora biti otroška obutev vključena v obseg zadevnega izdelka, je bila dokončna analiza škode narejena za zadevni izdelek v celoti, tj. vključno z otroškimi čevlji.
An association of importers reiterated its claim that if the complainants, who they allege merely assemble in the Community footwear components from non-Community sources, are considered being Community producers, then the importers that maintained design, branding, R&D, management and retail activities in the Community should also be considered Community producers.
Neko združenje uvoznikov je ponovilo svojo zahtevo, da če se za proizvajalce Skupnosti štejejo pritožniki, ki v Skupnosti domnevno le sestavljajo sestavne dele obutve s poreklom zunaj Skupnosti, je treba za proizvajalce Skupnosti šteti tudi uvoznike, ki opravljajo dejavnosti oblikovanja, trženja blagovne znamke, R&R, upravljanja in prodaje na drobno v Skupnosti.
This claim was already addressed in the recital 148 of the provisional Regulation where it was concluded that only the companies active in the production/manufacturing in the Community qualify as Community producers.
Ta zahteva je že obravnavana v uvodni izjavi 148 začasne uredbe, v kateri je bilo sklenjeno, da se za proizvajalce Skupnosti štejejo le družbe, ki se v Skupnosti ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo/izdelavo.
The products traded by the importers are, amongst others, produced in China and Vietnam and do not qualify for EC origin, are subject to import duties, and those operators in the Community therefore cannot be considered Community producers.
Ker se izdelki, ki jih prodajajo uvozniki, med drugim izdelujejo na Kitajskem in v Vietnamu in se zanje ne šteje, da prihajajo iz ES, ter so predmet uvoznih dajatev, se navedeni subjekti v Skupnosti ne morejo šteti za proizvajalce Skupnosti.
In the absence of new information, those conclusions are hereby confirmed, and it is definitively concluded that the producers mentioned in recital 146 of the provisional Regulation constitute the total Community production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi pomanjkanja novih informacij se te sklepne ugotovitve potrdijo in dokončno se sklene, da proizvajalci iz uvodne izjave 146 začasne uredbe predstavljajo celotno proizvodnjo Skupnosti v smislu člena 4(1) osnovne uredbe.
The definition of Community industry was questioned by various exporting producers, importers and an association of importers on the grounds that the non-sampled companies did not cooperate during the investigation, e.g. by providing a reply to the sampling questionnaire and that therefore the legal requirement on standing of the complaint was not fulfilled throughout the investigation.
Več proizvajalcev izvoznikov, uvoznikov in eno združenje uvoznikov je izrazilo dvom glede opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, ker nevzorčene družbe med preiskavo niso sodelovale, tj. odgovorile na vprašalnik, in zato pravna zahteva glede reprezentativnosti zahtevka ni bila izpolnjena med celotno preiskavo.
For those reasons, they alleged that the 814 complainants could not legally constitute the Community industry.
Trdili so, da 814 pritožnikov zato ne more zakonito predstavljati industrije Skupnosti.
Reference was also made to various Council Regulations whereby complainant producers who failed to cooperate properly were excluded from the definition of the Community industry.
Sklicevali so se tudi na različne uredbe Sveta, s katerimi so bili proizvajalci pritožniki, ki niso pravilno sodelovali, izključeni iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti.
In this respect, it should be noted that pursuant to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, the term Community industry shall be interpreted as referring to Community producers whose collective output of the like products constitutes a major proportion as defined in Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
S tem v zvezi je treba opomniti, da v skladu s členom 4(1) osnovne uredbe pojem industrije Skupnosti pomeni proizvajalce Skupnosti, katerih skupna proizvodnja podobnega izdelka predstavlja glavni delež, kot je opredeljeno v členu 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
Article 5(4) further gives a definition of this major proportion, i.e. that those Community producers expressly supporting the complaint should account for not less than 25 % of the total Community production and more than 50 % of the total production of the like product produced by that portion of Community producers expressing either support for or opposition to the investigation.
Ta glavni delež je opredeljen v členu 5(4), tj. tisti proizvajalci Skupnosti, ki izrecno podpirajo pritožbo, morajo predstavljati vsaj 25 % celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti in več kot 50 % celotne proizvodnje podobnega izdelka tistih proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ki pritožbo bodisi podpirajo bodisi ji nasprotujejo.
In this specific case, the complainant Community producers represented more than 40 % of the Community production, and according to the above legal requirements, they are deemed to constitute the Community industry.
V tem primeru so proizvajalci Skupnosti pritožniki predstavljali več kot 40 % proizvodnje Skupnosti, zato se v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi zahtevami šteje, da predstavljajo industrijo Skupnosti.
In addition no producer opposed the complaint.
Poleg tega pritožbi ni nasprotoval noben proizvajalec.