natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the company was not able to demonstrate that it operated without significant State interference.
Družba zato ni mogla dokazati, da posluje brez znatnejšega vmešavanja države.
It was also argued by one company that the State-owned shareholder owning the majority of the company’s shares, and which consequently nominated the majority of the members of the board, could not significantly influence the company’s decisions.
Ena družba je tudi dokazovala, da delničar v državni lasti, ki je lastnik večine delnic družbe in posledično imenuje večino članov sveta direktorjev, ne more znatneje vplivati na odločitve družbe.
In this respect, it is recalled that, in accordance with a consistent Commission practice, where the State has the possibility to exert significant influence on the company’s decisions, whether legally or de facto, it is considered that the first criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not met.
Glede tega se opozarja, da se v primeru, ko ima država možnost znatneje vplivati na odločitve družbe, bodisi pravno ali de facto, v skladu z dosledno prakso Komisije šteje, da prvo merilo iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe ni izpolnjeno.
Therefore, the claim had to be rejected.
Zahtevek je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
Regarding the second criterion, i.e. that firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards, all three companies submitted that they are fulfilling the criterion because their accounting records are independently audited.
V zvezi z drugim merilom, tj. podjetja morajo voditi enovito računovodsko evidenco, ki se revidira neodvisno in v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, so vse tri družbe zatrjevale, da izpolnjujejo merilo, ker je revizija njihove računovodske evidence neodvisna.
However, it was found that the auditors’ reports of the companies contained significant discrepancies with the company’s accounts, or that changes in the accounting policy of the companies concerned were not addressed, as required by international accounting standards.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da revizorska poročila o družbah neskladna z računovodsko evidenco družbe ali da ne upoštevajo spremembe računovodske politike zadevnih družb, kot to zahtevajo mednarodni računovodski standardi.
In one case, it was also found that the amounts mentioned in the auditor’s notes to the accounts did not coincide with the company’s accounts.
V enem primeru je bilo tudi ugotovljeno, da se zneski, navedeni v revizorjevih zabeležkah o računovodski evidenci, ne ujemajo z računovodsko evidenco družbe.
Another company did not submit an English version of the complete financial statements including the auditor’s notes thereto, which prevented a proper examination.
Neka druga družba ni predložila angleškega izvoda popolnega računovodskega izkaza in revizorjevih zabeležk o njem, zaradi česar ga ni bilo mogoče pravilno proučiti.
Therefore, it had to be concluded that the accounting records of all three companies concerned were not audited in line with international accounting standards as required by Article 2(7)(c) second indent of the basic Regulation and the claims were rejected.
Zato je bilo treba skleniti, da revizija računovodskih evidenc vseh treh zadevnih družb ni v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, kakor zahteva druga alinea člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, in zahtevki so bili zavrnjeni.
Regarding the third criterion, the three companies submitted that contrary to the Commission’s findings, there were no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
V zvezi s tretjim merilom so vse tri družbe trdile, da v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Komisije ni večjih izkrivljanj, prenesenih iz nekdanjega netržnega gospodarstva.
One company disagreed that no evidence was available showing that its land use rights reflected market values and submitted public information concerning land prices.
Ena družba se ni strinjala z ugotovitvijo, da ni dokazov o tem, da njena pravica do rabe zemljišča odraža tržno vrednost, in je predložila informacije javnega značaja o cenah zemljišč.
This information was provided significantly after the deadline to submit a properly documented claim for MET and it could no longer be verified; it had therefore to be rejected.
Ta informacija je bila predložena po roku, določenem za predložitev pravilno dokumentiranega zahtevka za status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu, in je ni bilo mogoče več preveriti: zato jo je bilo treba zavrniti.
As far as the second company is concerned, this was found to have bought its production facilities of the product concerned from a State-owned company, however, at a substantial discount in comparison to the value determined by independent evaluators.
Kar zadeva drugo družbo, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je kupila svoje proizvodne zmogljivosti zadevnega izdelka od družbe v lasti države s precejšnjim popustom glede na vrednost, ki so jo določili neodvisni ocenjevalci.
Its depreciation of fixed assets was also found to be inconsistent.
Prav tako so bile ugotovljene nedoslednosti pri amortizaciji stalnih sredstev.
The third company was found to receive bank loan guarantees from its State-owned shareholder and to operate a settlement account in such a way that it was not possible to link invoices and payments.
Pri tretji družbi se je pokazalo, da je jamstva za bančna posojila dobila od delničarja v lasti države in da vodi poravnalni račun tako, da ni mogoče povezati računov in plačil.
This means that there are significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
To kaže na precejšnja izkrivljanja, ki so se prenesla iz nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
It was consequently concluded that the companies concerned did not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) third indent of the basic Regulation and their claims had therefore to be rejected.
Tako je bilo sklenjeno, da zadevne družbe ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz tretje alinee člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe in je zato bilo treba njihove zahtevke zavrniti.
The company which did not fulfil the fourth criterion argued that, contrary to the Commission’s findings, bankruptcy law did guarantee stability and legal certainty.
Družba, ki ni izpolnjevala četrtega merila, je dokazovala, da v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Komisije stečajna zakonodaja zagotavlja stabilnost in pravno varnost.
However, it was found that this company faced significant financial difficulties having been loss-making for a number of consecutive years, and was bailed out by its State-owned shareholder.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da se ta družba spopada s precejšnjimi finančnimi težavami, saj že nekaj let zapovrstjo posluje z izgubo, ter da ji iz težav pomaga njen delničar v lasti države.
Although, as argued by the company, such significant financial difficulties may not necessarily result in bankruptcy, the fact that the State-owned shareholder rescued the company (including through debt write-off), in a situation where under normal market conditions a shareholder would not have done this, indicates that the application of such law to this particular case is doubtful.
Takšne znatne finančne težave sicer ne vodijo nujno v stečaj, kakor je dokazovala družba, vendar pa dejstvo, da je družbo rešil delničar v lasti države (tudi z odpisom dolga), medtem ko v normalnih tržnih pogojih delničar v takšnih okoliščinah ne bi tako ravnal, kaže, da je uporaba takšne zakonodaje v tem določenem primeru dvomljiva.
It had therefore to be concluded that there was no evidence that the bankruptcy law applied in practice to the company.
Zato je bilo treba skleniti, da ni dokazov, da bi se stečajna zakonodaja za družbo uporabila v praksi.
In the absence of such evidence this criterion was considered as not being fulfilled.
Ker takšnega dokaza ni bilo, se je štelo, da to merilo ni izpolnjeno.
The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties directly concerned were informed accordingly.
Opravljeno je bilo posvetovanje s svetovalnim odborom in neposredno prizadete stranke so bile ustrezno obveščene.
The main arguments raised by exporters have already been addressed above.
Dokazovanje izvoznikov je že obravnavano zgoraj.
The Community industry was also given the opportunity to comment, and agreed with the MET determination.
Industrija Skupnosti, ki je tudi imela možnost predložiti pripombe, se je strinjala z odločitvami glede statusa subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Individual Treatment (IT)
Individualna obravnava
Further to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the Basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation for receiving individual treatment.
Po členu 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se za države, ki sodijo v okvir člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe, določi, če že se, dajatev za vso državo, razen v tistih primerih, ko družbe lahko dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe za individualno obravnavo.
The three exporting producers, as well as requesting MET, also claimed individual treatment in the event of not being granted MET.
Trije proizvajalci izvozniki so poleg zahtevka za status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu predložili tudi zahtevek za individualno obravnavo v primeru, da jim ne bi bil odobren status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Since none of the three companies was able to demonstrate that State interference, whether actual or potential, was not such as to also influence their export prices and quantities, as well as their conditions and terms of the sales, it had to be concluded that they did not meet the conditions set in Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Ker nobena od treh družb ni mogla dokazati, da vmešavanje države, bodisi dejansko ali morebitno, ni takšno, da bi lahko vplivalo tudi na cene in količine izvoženih izdelkov ter na njihove prodajne pogoje, je bilo treba skleniti, da ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz člena 9(5)(b) osnovne uredbe.
Equally, for all three companies it was found that the risk of circumvention of the measures could not be excluded, if these exporters were to be given an individual duty rate.
Prav tako je bilo za vse tri družbe ugotovljeno, da ni mogoče izključiti tveganja izogibanja ukrepom, če bi tem izvoznikom odobrili individualno stopnjo dajatve.
This risk results from the abovementioned actual or potential State influence in the operation of the companies.
To tveganje izhaja iz zgoraj navedenega dejanskega ali morebitnega vmešavanja države v poslovanje družb.
Moreover, given the nature and presentation of PTFE, it is usually very difficult, in particular for customs authorities, to identify the producer of the PTFE being imported.
Še več, glede na naravo in predstavitev PTFE je navadno zelo težko, zlasti za carinske organe, določiti proizvajalca uvoženega PTFE.
Therefore, the risk of circumvention of measures by way of exporting via a company with a lower level of duty, which is aggravated by the fact that there is significant risk of State interference, was also deemed significant.
Zato se je štelo, da je veliko tveganje izogibanja ukrepom z izvažanjem preko družbe z nižjo stopnjo dajatve, ki se še poveča zaradi precejšnjega tveganja vmešavanja države.
Therefore, the conditions set in Article 9(5)(e) of the basic Regulation were not met.
Pogoji iz člena 9(5)(e) osnovne uredbe zato niso bili izpolnjeni.
Since none of the companies meets all the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, it is provisionally decided not to grant them IT.
Glede na to, da nobena družba ne izpolnjuje vseh meril iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe, se začasno sklene, da se individualna obravnava zanje ne odobri.
Determination of normal value for exporting producers not granted MET
Določitev normalne vrednosti za proizvajalce izvoznike, ki se jim ne odobri status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted market economy treatment has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).
Na podlagi člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se mora normalna vrednost za proizvajalce izvoznike, ki se jim ne odobri status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu, določiti na podlagi cen ali računsko določene vrednosti v tretji državi s tržnim gospodarstvom („primerljiva država“).
In the notice of initiation, the USA was envisaged as an appropriate market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and interested parties were invited to comment on this.
V obvestilu o začetku so bile kot ustrezna tretja država s tržnim gospodarstvom za določitev normalne vrednosti za LRK predvidene ZDA in zainteresirane stranke so bile pozvane, da predložijo svoje pripombe glede tega.
Two exporting producers in the PRC argued that the USA was not an appropriate choice and proposed Russia instead.
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz LRK sta trdila, da odločitev za ZDA ni ustrezna in sta namesto ZDA predlagala Rusijo.
It was submitted that the USA market of PTFE is not sufficiently competitive since there are anti-dumping duties imposed on imports from Italy and Japan since 1988.
Trdila sta, da trg PTFE v ZDA ni zadosti konkurenčen zaradi protidampinških dajatev, ki veljajo za uvoz iz Italije in Japonske od leta 1988 dalje.
It was also argued that the biggest US producer is related to one of the EU complainants.
Dokazovala sta tudi, da je največji proizvajalec v ZDA povezan z enim od pritožnikov v EU.
In addition, it was submitted that there are differences in technical levels, quality and end-uses between the PTFE sold in the USA market and that exported by Chinese producers into the Community.
Poleg tega sta zatrjevala, da se PTFE, ki se prodaja na trgu ZDA, in PTFE, ki ga kitajski proizvajalci izvažajo v Skupnost, razlikujeta po tehnični ravni, kakovosti in končni uporabi.
Furthermore, it was argued that there are differences in access to raw materials since USA producers must import fluorspar, facing export quotas imposed by the PRC which represents 50 % of that product’s world production.
Prav tako sta dokazovala, da je različen dostop do surovin, saj morajo proizvajalci iz ZDA uvažati fluorit in pri tem upoštevati izvozne kvote, ki jih je uvedla LRK in predstavljajo 50 % svetovne proizvodnje navedenega izdelka.
On the other side, Chinese exporters would have direct access to fluorspar produced in China.
Po drugi strani imajo kitajski izvozniki neposreden dostop do fluorita, izdelanega na Kitajskem.
Finally, it was submitted that China’s economic development (with lower labour costs than USA), is closer to Russia, which is also subject to the same investigation.
Dokazovala sta tudi, da je Kitajska po svojem gospodarskem razvoju (z nižjimi stroški dela kot v ZDA) bolj podobna Rusiji, ki je tudi predmet iste preiskave.
It should be noted that production of PTFE is made in a limited number of countries.
Opozoriti je treba, da se PTFE izdeluje v omejenem številu držav.
One Indian producer came forward supporting the allegations of dumping against Chinese exporting producers and was asked to cooperate as a producer in a potential analogue country.
En proizvajalec v Indiji, ki je podprl trditve o domnevnem dampinškem izvozu kitajskih proizvajalcev, je bil zaprošen za sodelovanje kot proizvajalec v morebitni primerljivi državi.
However, the Indian producer did not agree to cooperate.
Vendar indijski proizvajalec ni privolil v sodelovanje.
As regards the suggested choice of Russia, for the reasons explained under recitals 70 to 75, data regarding normal value submitted by the Russian exporting producers was found to be unreliable and could not, therefore, be used.
Kar zadeva predlagano izbiro Rusije, je bilo zaradi razlogov iz uvodnih izjav 70 do 75 ugotovljeno, da so podatki, ki so jih v zvezi z normalno vrednostjo predložili ruski proizvajalci izvozniki, nezanesljivi in se zato ne morejo uporabiti.
Consequently, the use of such data for the determination of normal value for Chinese exporting producers not granted market economy treatment could not be accepted.
Zato je bilo nesprejemljivo, da bi se takšni podatki uporabili za določitev normalne vrednosti za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jim ni odobren status subjekta v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Moreover, a country also subject to investigation is not normally considered to be an appropriate analogue country, since its domestic market could be distorted.
Poleg tega država, ki je sama predmet preiskave, navadno ne velja za ustrezno primerljivo državo, saj je lahko njen domači trg izkrivljen.
Concerning the choice of the USA, the analysis of all of the information available showed that the USA appeared to be the most appropriate analogue country.
Glede izbire ZDA je analiza vseh razpoložljivih podatkov pokazala, da so ZDA najustreznejša primerljiva država.
The USA has a large and highly competitive market for the product concerned, with three producers and, despite anti-dumping duties, significant imports (above 20 % of the domestic market) including from the PRC and Russia.
Združene države Amerike imajo velik in zelo konkurenčen trg za zadevni izdelek, tri proizvajalce in kljub protidampinškim dajatvam precej velik uvoz (nad 20 % domačega trga), vključno iz LRK in Rusije.
Customs duties on imports of PTFE are lower in the USA (5,8 %) than in Russia (10 %).
Carinske dajatve na uvoz PTFE v ZDA so nižje (5,8 %) kot v Rusiji (10 %).
Regarding the relationship between a producer in the analogue country and in the Community this is not per se a reason to consider the choice of the USA as unreasonable.
Kar zadeva povezanost proizvajalca v primerljivi državi s proizvajalcem v Skupnosti, to ne more samo po sebi utemeljevati izbire ZDA kot neprimerne.
Data reported by USA producers was verified by the Commission services, which were fully satisfied with regard to its appropriateness and reliability.
Službe Komisije so preverile podatke, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci iz ZDA, in so se popolnoma prepričale o njihovi točnosti in zanesljivosti.
The argument on differences in access to raw materials (fluorspar) was found not to prevent the choice of the USA either.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da tudi dokazovanje o razlikah v dostopu do surovin (fluorit) ne preprečuje izbire ZDA.
No evidence was provided regarding the effect of the Chinese export quotas on the USA market so as to allow a quantification of such possible effect.
Predložen ni bil noben dokaz o učinku kitajskih izvoznih kvot na ameriški trg, kar bi omogočilo količinsko ovrednotiti morebitni takšen učinek.
It was found however, that fluorspar is the fourth upstream raw material of PTFE and should therefore represent only a very small part of its cost of manufacturing (roughly estimated at less than 5 %).
Bilo pa je ugotovljeno, da je fluorit med surovinami za PTFE na četrtem mestu in bi torej moral predstavljati le zelo majhen del stroškov proizvodnje (po grobi oceni manj kot 5 %).
In these circumstances, the effect of the Chinese export quotas on the USA market for PTFE would be minimal.
V takšnih okoliščinah bi bil učinek kitajskih izvoznih kvot na trg PTFE v ZDA zelo majhen.
Moreover, chloroform is a much more important input of PTFE, in which the PRC has a disadvantage due to its dependence on imports and the high AD duties in force against several exporting countries.
Še več, kloroform je veliko pomembnejša sestavina PTFE, tu pa je LRK v slabšem položaju zaradi svoje odvisnosti od uvoza in zaradi visokih protidampinških dajatev, ki so uvedene za številne države izvoznice.
It is therefore concluded that any difference in access to raw materials between USA and the PRC is not such as to render the choice of the former as analogue country unreasonable.
Zato je sklenjeno, da razlike v dostopu do surovin med ZDA in LRK niso takšne, da bi bila zaradi tega izbira prve za primerljivo državo neprimerna.
Regarding physical and technical differences and end-uses, the information available indicates that the product exported by Chinese producers, although normally of a lower quality due to different levels of contamination than the PTFE produced in the USA, still follows industry standards and is generally used for the same applications.
Glede fizikalnih in tehničnih razlik in končne uporabe razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da izvoženi izdelek kitajskih proizvajalcev, čeprav je zaradi različnih ravni nečistoč navadno slabše kakovosti kot PTFE, izdelan v ZDA, še dosega standarde industrije in ima na splošno enako uporabo.
Nevertheless, in order to take into account the possibility of different levels of contamination between the product concerned and the like product, and in the absence of any other basis, an adjustment was provisionally established at 10 %, based on estimations provided by the USA producers.
Vendar se je zaradi upoštevanja možnosti različnih ravni nečistoč med zadevnim in podobnim izdelkom in ob odsotnosti drugih podatkov na podlagi ocen, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci iz ZDA, začasno določila uskladitev na 10 %.
Finally, as far as the different level of economic development of the USA and the PRC is concerned, no evidence was submitted which could demonstrate whether and to what extent normal value was affected by such difference.
Kar zadeva različno stopnjo gospodarskega razvoja v ZDA in LRK, ni bil predložen noben dokaz, ki bi pokazal, ali takšna razlika vpliva na normalno vrednost in koliko.
Moreover, such difference in itself is not a relevant factor when selecting an analogue country.
Sploh pa takšna razlika sama po sebi ni pomemben dejavnik pri izbiri primerljive države.
Indeed, the selection of a modern and cost efficient market characterised by intensive competition may well result in a lower normal value than if the analogue country has a comparable economic development to the non market economy country.
Pravzaprav je zaradi izbire sodobnega in stroškovno učinkovitega trga, za katerega je značilna močna konkurenca, normalna vrednost prav lahko nižja kot v primeru, da ima primerljiva država podoben gospodarski razvoj kot država z netržnim gospodarstvom.
Considering the above, it was concluded that the USA was the most appropriate analogue country and that under these circumstances the selection of the USA seemed reasonable and justified in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega je bilo sklenjeno, da so ZDA najustreznejša primerljiva država in da je v teh okoliščinah in v skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe izbira ZDA primerna in upravičena.
The Commission sent a more detailed questionnaire to the producers in the USA requesting information on domestic sales prices and cost of production of the like product.
Komisija je proizvajalcem v ZDA poslala podrobnejši vprašalnik v zvezi s podatki o domačih prodajnih cenah in proizvodnih stroških podobnega izdelka.
The reply of the producers was verified on the spot.
Proizvajalčevi podatki so se preverjali na kraju samem.
Pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the Chinese exporting producers was established on the basis of verified information received from two producers in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market of the USA for comparable product types, since these were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade and in representative quantities.
V skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe se je normalna vrednost za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike določila na podlagi preverjenih podatkov, ki sta jih predložila dva proizvajalca v primerljivi državi, tj. na podlagi cen, ki so bile plačane ali se plačujejo na domačem trgu ZDA za primerljive vrste izdelka, saj se te po ugotovitvah prodajajo v običajnem poteku trgovine in v reprezentativnih količinah.
As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, the Commission followed the same methodology as the one explained in recitals 18 to 28.
Kar zadeva določitev normalne vrednosti, se je Komisija ravnala po metodologiji, ki je razložena v uvodnih izjavah 18 do 28.