natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In January 2004, separate requests were received from JSC Silvinit and JSC Uralkali (the applicants) for individual partial interim reviews of the existing measures pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Januarja 2004 sta družbi JSC Silvinit in JSC Uralkali („vložnika“) predložili ločena zahtevka za začetek individualnih delnih vmesnih pregledov obstoječih ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
The applicants alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that a comparison of normal value based on their own costs/domestic prices and their export prices to the Community would lead to a removal of dumping.
Vložnika sta domnevala in predložila dovolj prima facie dokazov, da bi primerjava normalne vrednosti, ki temelji na njunih lastnih stroških/domačih cenah in njunih izvoznih cenah v primerjavi s Skupnostjo, pomenila odpravo dampinga.
Therefore, the continued imposition of the existing measures at the existing levels, which were based on the level of dumping previously established, were no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Zato nadaljevanje obstoječih ukrepov za preprečevanje dampinga na obstoječih ravneh, ki so temeljile na prej vzpostavljeni ravni, ni več potrebno.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of partial interim reviews, the Commission published notices of initiation and commenced an investigation [8].
Po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom, da obstajajo zadostni dokazi za začetek delnih vmesnih pregledov, je Komisija objavila obvestili o začetku in začela s preiskavo [8].
Period of investigation
Obdobje preiskave
The investigation was limited to dumping and covered the period from 1 April 2003 until 30 March 2004 (the investigation period or IP).
Preiskava, omejena na damping, je zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2003 do 30. marca 2004 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The Commission officially advised the representatives of the exporting country, the applicants and the Community industry of the initiation of the interim reviews and gave all parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
Komisija je o začetku vmesnih pregledov uradno obvestila zastopnike države izvoznice, vložnika in industrijo Skupnosti ter dala vsem neposredno zadevnim strankam možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in zahtevajo zaslišanje.
The Commission also sent questionnaires to the applicants.
Komisija je vložnikoma poslala tudi vprašalnik.
Questionnaires replies were received from the applicants and from an exporting trader in Russia related to one of the applicant companies.
Vložnika in izvozni trgovec v Rusiji, povezan z enim izmed vložnikov, so predložili izpolnjene vprašalnike.
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the determination of dumping and carried out verifications of the replies to the questionnaire at the premises of the following companies:
Komisija je iskala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bili po njenem mnenju potrebni za ugotavljanje dampinga, ter preverila odgovore na vprašalnik pri naslednjih družbah:
Exporting producers in Russia:
proizvajalci izvozniki v Rusiji:
JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, Perm Region, Russia,
JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, regija Perm, Rusija,
JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Perm Region, Russia.
JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, regija Perm, Rusija.
Related exporter to JSC Silvinit:
z družbo JSC Silvinit povezani izvoznik:
International Potash Company, Moscow, Russia.
International Potash Company, Moskva, Rusija.
The product is the same as in previous investigation, i.e. potassium chloride (potash or KCl) and is generally used as agricultural fertiliser, directly, blended with other fertilisers or after transformation into a complex fertiliser known as NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium).
Izdelek je enak kot v prejšnji preiskavi, tj. kalijev klorid („pepelika“ ali KCl), ki se običajno neposredno uporablja kot kmetijsko gnojilo, kot mešanica z drugimi gnojili ali, po predelavi, kot kompleksno gnojilo, znano kot NPK (dušik, fosfor, kalij).
The potassium content is variable and is expressed as a percentage of the weight of potassium oxide (K2O) on the dry anhydrous product.
Vsebnost kalija je spremenljiva in je izražena kot delež kalijevega oksida (K2O) v suhem brezvodnem proizvodu.
It is also used as a raw material in the manufacture of certain industrial and pharmaceutical products.
Uporablja se tudi kot surovina pri proizvodnji nekaterih industrijskih in farmacevtskih izdelkov.
Potash is generally commercialised in either a standard/powder form (standard potash) or in other than standard form that includes — but is not limited to — a granular form (granular potash).
Pepelika se običajno trži v standardni obliki prahu („standardna pepelika“) ali v drugi nestandardni obliki, ki vključuje – vendar nanjo ni omejena – obliko zrn („zrnata pepelika“).
The product is generally classified into three basic categories, based on the K2O content, namely:
Izdelek je običajno razvrščen v tri osnovne kategorije, glede na delež K2O, in sicer:
potassium content not exceeding 40 % K2O — falling within Combined Nomenclature (CN) code 31042010,
delež kalija do vključno 40 % K2O po masi – uvrščen pod oznako kombinirane nomenklature („KN“) 31042010,
potassium content exceeding 40 % K2O but less than or equal to 62 % — falling within CN code 31042050,
delež kalija, ki presega 40 % K2O po masi, vendar do vključno 62 % – uvrščen pod oznako KN 31042050,
potassium content over 62 % K2O — falling within CN code 31042090.
delež kalija presega 62 % K2O po masi – uvrščen pod oznako KN 31042090.
It should be recalled that in the previous investigation it was found that imports of certain special mixtures or blends with an unusually high content of potash which do not fall under any of the CN codes for potash indicated above, should also be considered as the product concerned.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bilo v prejšnji preiskavi ugotovljeno, da je tudi uvoz nekaterih posebnih zmesi ali mešanic z nenavadno visokim deležem pepelike, ki niso uvrščene pod nobeno izmed zgoraj navedenih oznak KN, treba šteti za zadevni izdelek.
This conclusion was reached as such mixtures and blends shared the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and have the same uses as the basic categories mentioned above.
Takšna ugotovitev je bila sprejeta, ker imajo take zmesi in mešanice enake osnovne fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti ter enako rabo kot zgoraj navedene osnovne kategorije.
Accordingly, such mixtures or blends falling within CN codes ex31052010, ex31052090, ex31056090, ex31059091 and ex31059099 were also included in the present investigation and constitute part of the product concerned.
Zato so bile take zmesi in mešanice, ki so uvrščene pod oznake KN ex31052010, ex31052090, ex31056090, ex31059091 in ex31059099, tudi vključene v to preiskavo in so sestavni del zadevnega izdelka.
It was established that, as there were no differences in the physical or chemical properties between the product exported from Russia to the Community and the product produced in Russia and sold on the Russian domestic market, they were considered to be like products for the purposes of the present investigation.
Glede na to, da ni nobenih razlik med fizikalnimi in kemičnimi lastnostmi med izdelkom, izvoženim iz Rusije v Skupnost, in izdelkom, proizvedenim v Rusiji in prodanem na domačem ruskem trgu, je bilo ugotovljeno, da se jih za namene te preiskave šteje za podobne izdelke.
DUMPING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS
DAMPING V ZVEZI Z VLOŽNIKI
As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, it was first established whether the total volume of each of the applicants’ total domestic sales of the like product were representative in comparison with their respective total export sales volumes to the Community.
V zvezi z določanjem normalne vrednosti je bilo najprej ugotovljeno, ali je celotni obseg domače prodaje podobnega izdelka za vsakega vložnika reprezentativen v primerjavi z njunima celotnima obsegoma izvoza v Skupnost.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered to be representative when each of the applicants’ domestic sales volumes of the like product constituted at least 5 % of their respective total export sales volumes to the Community during the investigation period.
V skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe je domača prodaja štela za reprezentativno, ko je celotni obseg domače prodaje podobnega izdelka vsakega vložnika predstavljal vsaj 5 % njunega celotnega obsega izvoza v Skupnost v obdobju preiskave.
On this basis, for both applicants, overall domestic sales of the product concerned during the IP were found to have been made in representative quantities.
Na tej osnovi je bilo za oba vložnika ugotovljeno, da je bila celotna domača prodaja zadevnega izdelka v OP opravljena v reprezentativnih količinah.
Subsequently, by defining the product types in accordance with the TARIC codes under which the product is classified (i.e. by standard grade or other than standard grade, including granular) and by the packing or form in which it is shipped (i.e. in bulk, in bags or in containers), an analysis was made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type were representative.
Z opredelitvijo vrst izdelkov v skladu z oznakami TARIC, pod katere je uvrščen zadevni izdelek (tj. po standardni kakovosti ali ostalih standardnih kakovostih, vključno z zrnato) in po embalaži ali obliki, v kateri je odpremljen (tj. v razsutem stanju, vrečah ali zabojnikih), je bila narejena analiza, da se ugotovi, ali je bila domača prodaja vsake vrste izdelka reprezentativna.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Community.
Domača prodaja določene vrste izdelka se je štela za zadosti reprezentativno, če je celotni obseg domače prodaje te vrste v OP predstavljal 5 % ali več celotnega obsega prodaje primerljive vrste izdelka, izvoženega v Skupnost.
As a result of this analysis, it was found that one exporting producer, JSC Silvinit, had only sold one exported product type in representative quantities on the domestic market.
Ta analiza je ugotovila, da je en proizvajalec izvoznik, družba JSC Silvinit, na domačem trgu prodajal samo eno vrsto izdelka za izvoz v reprezentativnih količinah.
For the other exporting producer, JSC Uralkali, it was found that all exported product types had been sold in representative quantities on the domestic market.
Za drugega proizvajalca izvoznika, družbo JSC Uralkali, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je na domačem trgu prodajal vse vrste izdelka za izvoz v reprezentativnih količinah.
An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question.
Preučilo se je, ali se domačo prodajo vseh vrst izdelka lahko šteje kot običajni potek trgovine, in sicer tako, da se vzpostavi delež donosne prodaje zadevne vrste neodvisnim kupcem.
In this regard, it was found for JSC Uralkali that its domestic sales prices for the best sold product type exported to the Community (the best sold export type) accounting for over 99 % of such exports, showed unusual trends during the investigation period.
V tej zvezi je bilo ugotovljeno, da so domače prodajne cene družbe JSC Uralkali za najbolj prodajano vrsto izdelka, izvoženega v Skupnost („najbolj prodajana vrsta za izvoz“), in ki predstavlja več kot 99 % tega izvoza, kazale neobičajna gibanja v obdobju preiskave.
It was established that, during the investigation period, 77 % of domestic sales of the best sold exported type had been made to one customer in Russia and that the sales price to this particular customer had, in the space of one month in the middle of the investigation period, more than doubled.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bilo v obdobju preiskave 77 % domače prodaje najbolj prodajane vrste za izvoz prodane enemu kupcu v Rusiji in da so se prodajne cene tej stranki v obdobju enega meseca sredi obdobja preiskave več kot podvojile.
Price rises for the same product type sold to other domestic customers also rose at the same time, but only by a margin of around 40 %.
Cene za enako vrsto izdelka, prodanega drugim domačim kupcem, so se v enakem obdobju prav tako povišale, vendar samo za približno 40 %.
Examination of price rises for other potash types sold domestically showed similar price increases of around 40 % during the investigation period.
Preučitev podražitev za druge vrste pepelike, prodane na domačem trgu, je pokazala podobno zvišanje cen za približno 40 % v obdobju preiskave.
In view of this particular market situation with regard to pricing for a key product type used to calculate the dumping margin, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation it is considered that such sales do not permit a proper comparison.
Glede na te posebne razmere na trgu v zvezi z oblikovanjem cen za ključno vrsto izdelka, uporabljenim za izračun stopnje dampinga, se v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe šteje, da taka prodaja ne dovoljuje ustrezne primerjave.
Given the significance of such sales in the domestic sales volumes of the type in question, and the importance of this type in the overall export volume of potash exported by the company concerned to the Community, it is considered reasonable to disregard these specific sales to the customer in question.
Glede na pomen te prodaje v obsegu domače prodaje zadevne vrste in pomembnost te vrste v celotnem obsegu izvoza pepelike, ki jo je zadevna družba izvozila v Skupnost, je primerno, da se ne upošteva te določene prodaje zadevnemu kupcu.
The remaining domestic sales of this product type to other customers were found to be below the 5 % threshold considered necessary for them to be regarded as representative.
Za ostalo domačo prodajo te vrste izdelka drugim kupcem je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila pod 5 % pragom, ki je potreben, da se jo šteje kot reprezentativno.
Accordingly, normal value for this product type was calculated on the basis of the cost of production of the exporting producer concerned, plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and profit.
Zato je bila normalna vrednost za to vrsto izdelka izračunana na podlagi proizvodnih stroškov zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki jim je bila dodana razumna vrednost prodajnih, splošnih in administrativnih stroškov in dobička.
The amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profit were based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Vrednosti prodajnih, splošnih in administrativnih stroškov in dobička so temeljile na podlagi dejanskih podatkov proizvodnje in prodaje v običajnem poteku trgovine zadevnega izdelka s strani proizvajalca izvoznika v preiskavi v skladu s prvim stavkom člena 2(6) osnovne uredbe.
It was submitted by Uralkali that the ‘particular market situation’ foreseen in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation is not applicable for the sales of the product concerned to the customer in question and therefore the domestic prices for the product type concerned should have been used to establish normal value.
Družba Uralkali je opozorila, da „posebne razmere na trgu“ iz člena 2(3) osnovne uredbe ne veljajo za prodajo zadevnega izdelka zadevnemu kupcu, zato bi bilo treba za določitev normalne vrednosti uporabiti domače cene za zadevno vrsto izdelka.
In this regard it was argued (i) that the provision of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation would not apply in case of ‘artificially high prices’ and (ii) that special conditions applied to only one specific client could not be considered to constitute a ‘particular market situation’ for the Russian domestic market as a whole.
V zvezi s tem je trdila, da (i) določba člena 2(3) osnovne uredbe ne bi veljala v primeru „umetno zvišanih cen“ in (ii) da se posebni pogoji, ki veljajo samo za eno določeno stranko, ne morejo šteti kot „posebne razmere na trgu“ za celotni ruski domači trg.
Moreover, it was claimed that the prices in question were resulting from ‘market forces’ and reflected ‘the actual situation on the market’.
Poleg tega je trdila, da so zadevne cene posledica „tržnih sil“ in da odražajo „dejanske razmere na trgu“.
With regard to the above, it should be noted that the particular market situations referred to in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation are not exhaustive and that the particularity of the market should be assessed, inter alia, in light of price variations and trends rather than solely on the basis of the absolute level of the prices.
V zvezi z zgoraj navedenim je treba opozoriti, da razmere na trgu iz člena 2(3) osnovne uredbe niso izčrpne in da je treba posebnosti trgov ocenjevati, med drugim, v okviru nihanj in gibanj cen in ne samo na podlagi absolutne ravni cen.
In this case both low priced sales transactions and high priced transactions were excluded from the calculations since they did not reflect a level of prices of a lasting nature and since those prices did not appear to reflect market forces as such trends were not found for any other product type or for any other client of Uralkali.
V tem primeru sta bile tako nizkocenovne prodajne transakcije kot visokocenovne transakcije izključene iz izračunov, ker niso odražale ravni cen trajne narave in ker navedene cene niso odražale tržnih sil glede na to, da takšna gibanja niso bila ugotovljena za nobeno drugo vrsto izdelka ali nobeno drugo stranko družbe Uralkali.
Secondly, Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation provides that normal value may be constructed in situations where ‘… because of a particular market situation such sales do not permit a proper comparison …’.
Drugič, člen 2(3) osnovne uredbe določa, da se normalna vrednost lahko konstruira v razmerah, kjer „… zaradi posebne situacije na trgu taka prodaja ne dovoljuje ustrezne primerjave …“.
This clearly allows that, as in the current situation, sales to a customer which are considered not to permit a proper comparison may be disregarded as a basis for establishing normal value.
To jasno omogoča, tako kot v trenutnih razmerah, da prodaje kupcu, ki ne dovoljuje ustrezne primerjave, ni potrebno upoštevati kot primerne osnove za določitev normalne vrednosti.
This conclusion does not relate to the Russian market as a whole but rather to these sales of Uralkali.
Ta ugotovitev se ne nanaša na celotni ruski trg, ampak na prodajo družbe Uralkali.
As concerns JSC Silvinit, where the sales volume of one product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the unit cost, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the adjusted unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.
Kar zadeva družbo JSC Silvinit, kjer je obseg prodaje ene vrste izdelka, ki se je prodajal po neto cenah, ki so bile enake ali večje kot stroški na enoto, predstavljal več kot 80 % skupnega obsega prodaje navedene vrste in kjer je bila tehtana povprečna cena tiste vrste enaka ali večja kot prilagojeni stroški na enoto, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtano povprečje cen celotne domače prodaje navedene vrste izdelka v OP, ne glede na to, ali je bila prodaja dobičkonosna ali ne.
For the other product type of JSC Silvinit, which was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic prices to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value, another method had to be applied.
Za drugo vrsto izdelka družbe JSC Silvinit, ki je bila prodana v nezadostnih količinah, da bi lahko domača cena predstavljala primerno osnovo za določitev normalne vrednosti, je bilo treba uporabiti drugo metodo.
In this case, constructed normal value was used, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
V tem primeru je bila v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe uporabljena konstruirana normalna vrednost.
Normal value was constructed by adding to the adjusted unit cost of the exported type, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin of profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s prvim stavkom člena 2(6) osnovne uredbe je bila normalna vrednost konstruirana tako, da je bil prilagojenim stroškom na enoto vrste za izvoz prištet razumni znesek za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške ter za ustrezno stopnjo dobička na podlagi dejanskih podatkov proizvodnje in prodaje v običajnem poteku trgovine podobnega izdelka s strani proizvajalca izvoznika.
It was claimed by Uralkali that the profit margin used in the construction of the normal value did not properly take into account the adjustments of the gas costs, as the profits used for the constructed normal values were derived form the company’s accounts before adjustments.
Družba Uralkali je trdila, da stopnja dobička, uporabljena za konstruiranje normalne vrednosti, ni ustrezno upoštevala popravkov stroškov plina, ker je dobiček, uporabljen za konstruiranje normalne vrednosti, izhajal iz računovodske dokumentacije družbe pred popravki.
However, this claim could not be accepted since in accordance with the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation the actual profit amounts realised by the company in the domestic market should be used for the construction of the normal value.
Vendar te trditve ni bilo mogoče sprejeti, ker je v skladu s členom 2(6) osnovne uredbe treba dejanske zneske za dobičke, ki jih ustvari družba na domačem trgu, uporabiti za konstruiranje normalne vrednosti.
As concerns energy costs, such as electricity and gas used in the mining and production processes of the product concerned, the investigation established that these costs form a significant proportion of the total cost of manufacturing of potash producers, not only in Russia but in other producing countries as well.
Kar zadeva stroške energije, kot sta elektrika in plin, ki se uporabljata pri rudarskih in proizvodnih procesih zadevnega izdelka, je preiskava ugotovila, da ti stroški predstavljajo znaten del proizvodnih stroškov proizvajalcev pepelike, ne samo v Rusiji, ampak tudi v drugih državah proizvajalkah.
In this regard, it was submitted by the Community industry that the energy cost per unit of electricity and gas paid by the Russian companies to their utilities suppliers did not reasonably reflect the actual production cost of the electricity and gas purchased.
V zvezi s tem je industrija Skupnosti opozorila, da stroški energije za elektriko in plin na enoto, ki sta jih ruski družbi plačali svojim dobaviteljem komunalnih storitev, realno ne odražajo dejanskih proizvodnih stroškov za kupljeno elektriko in plin.
In view of these allegations, it was considered appropriate in the present case to also compare the applicants’ energy purchase costs per unit to those of another major potash producer with similar production methods, output levels and similar natural advantages.
Zaradi teh domnev se je v tem primeru štelo za primerno tudi, da se primerja vložnikove nabavne stroške energije na enoto s stroški drugega velikega proizvajalca pepelike s podobnimi proizvodnimi metodami, ravnijo proizvodnje in podobnimi naravnimi pogoji.
As there are no other producers of potash in Russia, this information was sought and obtained from a large producer of potash in Canada.
Glede na to, da ni drugih proizvajalcev pepelike v Rusiji, so se ti podatki poiskali in pridobili od velikega proizvajalca pepelike v Kanadi.