natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
All export sales to the Community by the Chinese exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Community and therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable.
Izdelki, ki so jih v Skupnost izvozili kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki, so se prodali neposredno neodvisnim odjemalcem v Skupnosti, zato se je izvozna cena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe določila na podlagi cen, ki so bile dejansko plačane ali se plačujejo.
Adjustments were made in respect of discounts and rebates, commissions, transport, insurance, packing, credit costs, after sales costs and bank charges where applicable and justified.
Uskladitve so bile narejene v zvezi s popusti in rabati, provizijami, stroški prevoza, zavarovanja, pakiranja, kreditov, s poprodajnimi ter bančnimi stroški, kjer je bilo to primerno in upravičeno.
As mentioned in recital 53 an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation was made to the normal value for differences in degrees of contamination between the product sold by the Chinese producers to the Community and that sold in the domestic market in the USA.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 53, je bila na podlagi člena 2(10)(a) narejena uskladitev normalne vrednosti zaradi različnih ravni nečistoč pri izdelku, ki ga kitajski proizvajalec prodaja v Skupnost, in izdelku v prodaji na domačem trgu v ZDA.
Furthermore, one product type exported by the Chinese exporting producers had a different thermo treatment when compared to the comparable type sold in the analogue country.
Poleg tega je bila ena vrsta izdelka iz kitajskega izvoza drugače toplotno obdelana kot primerljiva vrsta izdelka v prodaji v primerljivi državi.
Therefore, an allowance in line with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation was made.
Zato se je omogočila uskladitev v skladu s členom 2(10)(a) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of any more reliable information, the adjustment was established on the basis of the price difference related to that specific characteristic found in the analogue country.
V odsotnosti zanesljivejših informacij se je uskladitev določila na podlagi cenovne razlike, ki je bila v zvezi z navedeno posebnostjo ugotovljena v primerljivi državi.
For one product type exported by the Chinese producers, with an average particle size between 100 microns and 400 micros, no direct matching product type was produced during the IP by the cooperating producers in the USA, and no estimation of the market difference could be established.
Sodelujoči proizvajalci v ZDA v obdobju preiskave niso izdelovali vrste izdelka, ki bi bila neposredno podobna vrsti izdelka iz kitajskega izvoza s povprečno velikostjo delcev med 100 in 400 mikroni, zato ni bilo mogoče določiti tržne razlike.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the information provided by one producer in the USA, it was provisionally concluded that this product type sold by the Chinese exporters, with inconsistent particle sizes, had characteristics closely resembling those of low flow PTFE (or less than 100 micron).
Vendar je bilo na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec iz ZDA, začasno sklenjeno, da ta vrsta izdelka z nestalno velikostjo delcev, ki jo prodajajo kitajski izvozniki, po svojih značilnostih močno spominja na nizko pretočni PTFE (delci manjši od 100 mikronov).
It was therefore considered appropriate to provisionally base the normal value of that type on the normal value found for low flow PTFE sold in the USA market.
Zato se je štelo za ustrezno, da se normalna vrednost navedene vrste določi na podlagi ugotovljene normalne vrednosti za nizko pretočni PTFE v prodaji na trgu ZDA.
An adjustment was also made with regard to claimed differences in Chinese VAT reimbursement.
Uskladitev je bila narejena tudi zaradi zatrjevanih razlik v zvezi s kitajskim vračilom DDV.
For each Chinese exporting producer, the weighted average normal value for the types exported to the Community established for the analogue country was compared with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type exported to the Community, as provided for under Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.
Kakor je predvideno s členom 2(11) osnovne uredbe, se je pri vsakem kitajskem proizvajalcu izvozniku tehtano povprečje normalne vrednosti, ki je bilo v primerljivi državi določeno za vrsto izdelka, izvoženo v Skupnost, primerjalo s tehtanim povprečjem izvozne cene ustrezne vrste izdelka, izvoženo v Skupnost.
As explained in recitals 41 to 43, none of the three cooperating Chinese companies was granted IT.
Kakor je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah (41) do (43) zgoraj, nobeni od treh sodelujočih kitajskih družb ni bila odobrena individualna obravnava.
Consequently, a single countrywide dumping margin was established on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins found for each of the three Chinese producers.
Zato se je na podlagi tehtanega povprečja stopenj dampinga, ugotovljenih za vsakega posameznega kitajskega proizvajalca, določila enotna stopnja dampinga za vso državo.
The countrywide dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is 99,7 %.
Stopnja dampinga za vso državo, izražena kot odstotek neto cene CIF franko meja Skupnosti pred carinjenjem, znaša 99,7 %.
Since the three known exporting producers appeared to account for all Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Community, there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from cooperating.
Ker je izvoz treh znanih proizvajalcev izvoznikov očitno obsegal celotni kitajski izvoz zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost, ni bilo razloga za prepričanje, da kateri od proizvajalcev izvoznik ne sodeluje.
Therefore, it is provisionally considered that the countrywide dumping margin should be set at the same level.
Zato začasno velja, da je treba stopnjo dampinga za vso državo določiti na isti ravni.
Questionnaire replies were received from the two known exporting producers and from the related companies of one of the exporters (one trader in Russia and one importer in the Community).
Izpolnjene vprašalnike so predložili dva znana proizvajalca izvoznika in povezane družbe enega od izvoznikov (en trgovec v Rusiji in en uvoznik v Skupnosti).
Non-cooperation
Nesodelovanje
The questionnaire replies of both companies were significantly deficient.
Pri obeh družbah so bili odgovori na vprašalnik precej pomanjkljivi.
Furthermore, in both cases, the on-the-spot verification showed that these companies had submitted incomplete, incorrect and misleading information.
V obeh primerih je preveritev na kraju samem tudi pokazala, da sta tidve družbi predložili nepopolne, nepravilne in zavajajoče podatke.
Thus, in one of the companies, the accounting had significant shortcomings and was found to be unreliable.
Računovodska evidenca ene od družb je bila tako precej pomanjkljiva in je bila ocenjena kot nezanesljiva.
Therefore, the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted could not be verified.
Zato ni bilo mogoče preveriti, ali so predloženi podatki popolni in točni.
Furthermore, significant parts of the questionnaire reply could not be verified at all (since no reconciliation with its accounts was provided by the company) and in some instances the company even refused to submit some information necessary for the calculation of the dumping margin, or did not provide such information in a timely manner so that it could not be verified anymore.
Še več, odgovorov na vprašalnik v precejšnjem delu sploh ni bilo mogoče preveriti (ker družba ni predložila uskladitve z računovodsko evidenco), v nekaterih primerih družba niti ni hotela predložiti potrebnih podatkov za izračun stopnje dampinga ali pa teh podatkov ni predložila pravočasno, tako da se jih ni več dalo preveriti.
The reply of the second company was also deficient, and it was found on-the-spot that the company had given misleading information of an essential nature concerning its organisational structure.
Tudi odgovori druge družbe so bili pomanjkljivi in preveritev na kraju samem je pokazala, da so bili zavajajoči prav pomembni podatki o organizacijski strukturi družbe.
Thus, it was only found during the on-the-spot investigation that the company actually split into two entities at the beginning of the IP (one of them producing the product concerned).
Tako je bilo šele med preveritvijo v prostorih družbe ugotovljeno, da se je družba na začetku obdobja preiskave razdelila na dva subjekta (eden od njiju je izdeloval zadevni izdelek).
The fact that the complex company structure was not declared before the verification visit significantly impeded the investigation because of its far-reaching consequences in terms of accounting and determinations of costs.
Dejstvo, da zapletena sestava družbe ni bila znana pred preveritvenim obiskom, je zaradi precejšnjih posledic v zvezi z računovodsko dokumentacijo in določitvijo stroškov močno oviralo preiskavo.
Moreover, the company did not submit essential elements of the reply, including audited financial statements, claiming these were not available.
Družbu tudi ni predložila pomembnih delov odgovorov, vključno z revidiranimi računovodskimi izkazi, češ da niso na voljo.
However, this proved to be wrong during the verification visit.
Preveritveni obisk je pokazal, da to ne drži.
In addition, the company re-submitted at the beginning of the investigation verification significant parts of its questionnaire reply, impeding the verification of the questionnaire reply.
Poleg tega je družba na začetku preveritvenega obiska predložila nove odgovore na pomemben del vprašalnika in tako ovirala preverjanje podatkov iz odgovorov.
The related trader in Russia of the company mentioned in the previous recital did not cooperate.
Povezani ruski trgovec družbe, navedene v prejšnji uvodni izjavi, ni sodeloval.
Indeed, the company impeded the verification, by refusing access to information pertaining to organisation, sales of the product concerned, and payments, in such a way that this party could not be considered to be a cooperating party.
Pravzaprav je družba z zavrnitvijo dostopa do podatkov v zvezi z organizacijo, prodajo zadevnega izdelka in plačili, tako ovirala preveritev, da je ni bilo mogoče šteti za sodelujočo stranko.
Finally, the related trader in the United Kingdom could not provide any financial figure for the IP.
Povezani trgovec v Združenem kraljestvu pa ni mogel predložiti finančnih podatkov za obdobje preiskave.
In view of the above, it was considered that the dumping margins for both exporting producers could not be established on the basis of their own data.
Glede na navedeno se je štelo, da se stopnje dampinga za ta dva proizvajalca izvoznika ne more določiti na podlagi njunih podatkov.
The dumping margin was therefore provisionally determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Stopnja dampinga se je zato začasno določila na podlagi razpoložljivih dejstev v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of any other information, the normal value was provisionally calculated on the basis of the information in the complaint.
V odsotnosti drugih podatkov se je normalna vrednost začasno izračunala na podlagi podatkov pritožnika.
An average normal value was calculated from the prices indicated in the price lists of the domestic market during the IP of both exporting producers.
Povprečna normalna vrednost se je izračunala na podlagi cen obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bile navedene v cenikih domačega trga v obdobju preiskave.
In the absence of any more appropriate basis, one single normal value was calculated for the product concerned as a whole.
Ker ni bilo ustreznejših podatkov, se je izračunala enotna normalna vrednost za zadevni izdelek v celoti.
Export price was provisionally calculated on the basis of Eurostat data for the IP.
Izvozna cena se je začasno izračunala na podlagi podatkov Eurostata za obdobje preiskave.
Pursuant to Article 2(10)(e) of the basic Regulation, adjustments were made to the normal value, to take into account the fact that the prices in the price-lists included terms of delivery other than ex-works, and to the export price to take into account the differences in terms of delivery and other charges incurred between ex-works and CIF incoterms.
Na podalgi člena 2(10)(e) osnovne uredbe so bile narejene uskladitve normalne vrednosti zaradi dejstva, da so bili v cenah na cenikih zajeti drugačni dobavni pogoji kot dobava franko tovarna, ter izvozne cene zaradi razlik, ki pri dobavnih in drugih stroških nastanejo med ravnijo franko tovarna in CIF.
All adjustments were made on the basis of information provided in the complaint.
Vse uskladitve so bile narejene na podlagi predloženih podatkov v pritožbi.
The provisional dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price, as determined above.
Začasna stopnja dampinga je bila določena na podlagi primerjave tehtanega povprečja normalne vrednosti in tehtanega povprečja izvozne cene, kakor je določeno zgoraj.
The comparison between the normal value and the export price showed the existence of dumping.
Primerjava normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene je pokazala, da je uvoz dampinški.
The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is 36,6 %.
Začasna stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek neto cene CIF franko meja Skupnosti pred carinjenjem, znaša 36,6 %.
Since the aforementioned two companies represented all export sales from Russia to the Community, and since there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from cooperating, the residual duty was also set at the same level.
Ker sta zgoraj navedeni družbi predstavljali celoten izvoz iz Rusije v Skupnost in ker ni bilo razloga za prepričanje, da kak proizvajalec izvoznik ni sodeloval, se je na isti ravni določila tudi preostala dajatev.
Community production
Proizvodnja skupnosti
Within the Community, the product concerned is known to be manufactured in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland by:
Zadevni izdelek v Skupnosti po znanih podatkih izdelujejo v Nemčiji, Italiji, na Nizozemskem, v Združenem kraljestvu in Poljski, in sicer:
three producers on behalf of which the complaint was lodged, representing more than 80 % of the Community production, and
trije proizvajalci, v imenu katerih je bila vložena pritožba in ki predstavljajo več kot 80 % proizvodnje Skupnosti; in
two other Community producers which were not complainants.
dva druga proizvajalca Skupnosti, ki nista pritožnika.
Only one has submitted general information to the Commission.
Samo eden je Komisiji predložil splošne podatke.
Neither of these two producers opposed the present proceeding.
Nobeden od teh dveh proizvajalcev ni nasprotoval sedanjemu postopku.
The Commission has found that all the above companies could be considered as Community producers within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je ugotovila, da se vse zgoraj navedene družbe lahko štejejo za proizvajalce Skupnosti v smislu člena 4(1) osnovne uredbe.
The output of all the above companies constitutes the Community production, established by adding to the volume of production reported by the three producers supporting the complaint, the estimated production of the two non-complaining producers, as contained in the complaint.
Proizvodnja vseh zgoraj navedenih družb predstavlja proizvodnjo Skupnosti, določeno tako, da se je obsegu proizvodnje, ki so ga navedli trije proizvajalci pritožniki, prištela predvidena proizvodnja obeh proizvajalcev nepritožnikov, kakor je bila navedena v pritožbi.
Community industry
Industrija skupnosti
The accumulated production of the three Community producers which cooperated with the Commission represents 81 % of the total production of granular PTFE resin in the Community.
Akumulirana proizvodnja treh proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ki so sodelovali s Komisijo, obsega 81 % celotne proizvodnje PTFE v obliki granul v Skupnosti.
They are therefore deemed to constitute ‘the Community industry’ within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi tega se šteje, da predstavljajo „industrijo Skupnosti“ v smislu členov 4(1) in 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
Community consumption
Poraba v skupnosti
Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community industry on the Community market, plus the estimated sales of the other Community producers, plus the imports from Russia, the PRC and the other third countries under CN code ex39046100.
Poraba v Skupnosti je bila ugotovljena na podlagi obsega prodaje industrije Skupnosti na trgu Skupnosti, kateri se prišteje ocenjena prodaja drugih proizvajalcev Skupnosti in uvoženi izdelki iz Rusije, LRK ter drugih tretjih držav iz oznake KN ex39046100.
It is noted that imports from Russia under CN code 39046100 cover the product concerned and other products.
Opozarja se, da uvoženi izdelki iz Rusije iz oznake KN 39046100 zajemajo zadevni izdelek in druge izdelke.
The total import volume from Russia of PTFE was therefore estimated based on the methodology followed in the complaint.
Skupni obseg uvoza PTFE iz Rusije je bil zato ocenjen po metodologiji, ki se je uporabila v pritožbi.
For the other countries no information indicated that imports under such CN code would contain PTFE not in granular form.
Za druge države ni bilo podatkov, da uvoženi izdelki iz take oznake KN vsebujejo PTFE, ki ni v obliki granul.
Between 2001 and the IP, the apparent Community consumption decreased from 16185 tonnes to 14725 tonnes, i.e. by 9 %.
Med letom 2001 in obdobjem preiskave se je resnična poraba Skupnosti zmanjšala s 16185 ton na 14725 ton, tj. za 9 %.
This decrease in consumption was caused to a large extent by the general economic downturn in the period since 2002.
To zmanjšanje porabe je v veliki meri povzročila splošna gospodarska recesija v obdobju od leta 2002.
Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned
Kumulativna presoja vpliva zadevnega uvoza
The Commission examined whether imports of granular PTFE resin originating in Russia and the PRC should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je proučila, ali naj se uvoz PTFE v obliki granul s poreklom iz Rusije in LRK oceni kumulativno v skladu s členom 3(4) osnovne uredbe.
The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each of the countries concerned was above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the volume of imports from each of these countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation (i.e. their market shares attaining 10,8 % and 23,7 % respectively in the IP).
Stopnja ugotovljenega dampinga v zvezi z uvozom iz vsake od zadevnih držav je bila nad de minimis pragom, kakor je opredeljen v členu 9(3) osnovne uredbe, in obseg uvoza iz vsake od teh držav v smislu člena 5(7) osnovne uredbe ni bil zanemarljiv (kar pomeni, da sta njuna tržna deleža dosegla 10,8 % oziroma 23,7 % v obdobju preiskave).
As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that granular PTFE resin imported from the countries concerned and that of the Community industry were alike in all their basic physical and technical characteristics.
Kar zadeva konkurenčne pogoje, je preiskava pokazala, da je PTFE v obliki granul, uvožen iz zadevnih držav, glede vseh osnovnih fizikalnih in tehničnih značilnosti enak tistemu iz industrije Skupnosti.
On that basis, PTFE originating in Russia and the PRC on the one hand and PTFE produced and sold in the Community on the other hand were interchangeable.
Glede na to je PTFE s poreklom iz Rusije in LRK zamenljiv s PTFE, ki se proizvaja in prodaja v Skupnosti.
Likewise, they were marketed in the Community through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions.
Prav tako sta se prodajala v Skupnosti po primerljivih prodajnih poteh in pod podobnimi trgovinskimi pogoji.
It was also found that export prices from Russia and China had a similar trend during the period considered and both were significantly undercutting the Community prices.
Ugotovljeno je tudi bilo, da je bil trend izvoznih cen iz Rusije in Kitajske v obravnavanem obdobju podoben in cene obeh držav so občutno nelojalno zniževale cene Skupnosti.
The Russian exporting producers argued that PTFE imported from Russia on the one hand and the one imported from the PRC on the other hand were subject to different conditions of competition and that imports originating in Russia should therefore be decumulated.
Ruski proizvajalci izvozniki so dokazovali, da za PTFE, uvožen Rusije, veljajo drugačni konkurenčni pogoji kot za tistega, ki je uvožen iz LRK, zato obeh uvozov ne bi smeli združevati.
In this regard, it was argued that import trends from Russia were declining over the period considered, while imports from China showed an increasing trend.
S tem v zvezi so dokazovali, da je uvoz iz Rusije v obravnavanem obdobju padal, medtem ko je uvoz iz Kitajske znatno naraščal.
Secondly, it was pointed out that imports from China and Russia were mainly concentrated in one Member State (Italy).
Poleg tega so poudarili, da se je uvoz iz Kitajske in Rusije osredotočal predvsem na eno državo članico (Italijo).
Therefore, Russian and Chinese PTFE products were not in competition in the other 24 Member States.
Zato ruski in kitajski izdelki PTFE niso konkurirali na trgih drugih 24 držav članic.
However, despite the decreasing trend, the volume of imports originating in Russia remains far from negligible, with a market share of 23,7 % of the Community consumption during the IP.
Vendar je uvoz s poreklom iz Rusije kljub padajočemu trendu vse prej kot zanemarljiv, saj je imel v obravnavanem obdobju 23,7-odstotni tržni delež v porabi Skupnosti.
Furthermore, PTFE exported from Russia was of a similar quality to PTFE exported from the PRC and destined for similar-end uses and applications.
Poleg tega je bil PTFE, izvožen iz Rusije, podobne kakovosti kot PTFE, izvožen iz LRK, ter namenjen podobni končni rabi in uporabi.
In addition, as mentioned above, export prices from Russia and China had a similar trend during the period considered and both were significantly undercutting the Community prices.
Kot je omenjeno zgoraj, je bil podoben tudi trend izvoznih cen iz Rusije in Kitajske v obravnavanem obdobju in izvozne cen obeh držav so precej nelojalno zniževale cene Skupnosti.
Finally, it should be noted that the Community industry sales were also concentrated mainly in Italy and therefore in direct competition with the imports originating in Russia and the PRC.
In končno je treba omeniti, da je bila tudi prodaja industrije Skupnosti osredotočena predvsem na Italijo in zato v neposredni konkurenci z uvoženimi izdelki s poreklom iz Rusije in LRK.
PTFE produced by the Community industry was sold through the same type of distribution channels in Italy as PTFE from Russia and China.
PTFE, ki ga je izdelala industrija Skupnosti, se je prodajal po istih distribucijskih poteh v Italiji kot PTFE iz Rusije in Kitajske.
It is also noted that there was no indication that Russian and Chinese imports into Italy were not further resold to other parts of the Community market and entered therefore into competition with Community products also outside Italy.
Opozarja se tudi, da ni podatkov o tem, da ruski in kitajski uvoz v Italijo ni bil prodan naprej v druge dele trga Skupnosti in tako konkuriral drugim izdelkom Skupnosti zunaj Italije.
On this basis, the argument that the product imported from Russia on the one hand and the one imported from the PRC on the other hand were subject to different conditions of competition had to be rejected.
Argument, da so za izdelek, uvožen Rusije, veljali drugačni konkurenčni pogoji kot za tistega, ki je bil uvožen iz LRK, je bilo treba na podlagi tega zavrniti.