natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
From a general point of view, it is recalled that the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation requires the companies concerned to demonstrate that they have a basic set of accounts independently audited in line with international accounting standards, in order to assess the reliability of those accounts in view of ensuring a proper assessment of dumping.
S splošnega vidika je treba opozoriti, da drugo merilo člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe od zadevnih družb zahteva, da dokažejo, da je računovodska evidenca neodvisno revidirana v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, da se lahko oceni zanesljivost te računovodske evidence za zagotovitev ustrezne ocene dampinga.
Indeed, the dumping calculation is mainly based on data included in the accounting records of the companies, such as revenue, costs, profit and inventory, which must therefore be reliable.
Izračun stopnje dampinga v resnici temelji na podatkih, vključenih v računovodsko evidenco družb, kot so prihodek, stroški, dobiček in zaloge, ki morajo biti zato zanesljivi.
The anti-dumping verification visit precisely consists in verifying those items.
Z obiskom zaradi preveritve v okviru protidampinškega postopka se preverjajo navedeni podatki.
Moreover, it is also recalled that the opinion expressed by the auditor (approval without or with qualifications, or refusal to approve) depends on the materiality of the discrepancies found in the accounts.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da je mnenje, ki ga je podal revizor (odobritev z ali brez pridržka ali zavrnitev odobritve), odvisno od bistvenosti neskladij, ugotovljenih v računovodski evidenci.
The fact that an auditor does not refuse to approve the accounts does not mean in itself that the accounts are correct, which could only be guaranteed by an approval without reservations by the auditor.
Dejstvo, da revizor ne zavrne odobritve računovodske evidence, še ne pomeni, da je računovodska evidenca pravilna, kar bi bilo zagotovljeno le z odobritvijo brez pridržka revizorja.
More specifically, concerning Companies 3, 9 and 14, it should be noted that the reservations made by the auditors were rather significant.
Treba je opozoriti, da so bili pridržki revizorjev, kar zadeva družbe 3, 9 in 14, precejšnji.
In the case of one company, the auditors were unable to verify the validity of the year-end balance of stocks and selling costs of the year.
V primeru ene družbe revizorji niso mogli preveriti veljavnosti preostanka zalog ob koncu leta in stroškov prodaje zadevnega leta.
In the case of another company, the auditors stated in their report that they were unable to check the inventory as of year-end due to ‘restricted conditions’.
V primeru druge družbe so revizorji v svojem poročilu navedli, da zaradi „omejevalnih pogojev“ niso mogli narediti popisa zalog ob koncu leta.
It is noted that the inventory value represented more than 10 % of the balance sheet total of that company.
Treba je opomniti, da predstavlja vrednost zalog več kot 10 % celotne bilance stanja zadevne družbe.
In addition, the accounts provided by the company did not match with those referred to by the auditors’ report, which casts doubts as to whether the correct audited accounts were submitted.
Poleg tega računovodska evidenca, ki jo je zagotovila družba, ni bila usklajena s tisto, ki jo navaja poročilo revizorjev, kar vzbuja dvome, ali je bila predložena pravilna računovodska evidenca.
As to the last company, significant reservations were in the 2002 annual accounts.
Pri tretji družbi je imel revizor velike pridržke glede zaključnega računa za leto 2002.
Despite no obvious change in accounting policy, nor any adjustment of issues raised in earlier years, the 2003 accounts did not have the same reservations, which raised doubts as to whether the accounts were independently audited in line with international standards.
Kljub neočitnim spremembam v knjigovodski politiki teh družb in kakršnim koli prilagoditvam podatkov v zgodnjih letih, takšnih pridržkov pri računovodski evidenci za leto 2003 ni bilo, kar vzbuja dvome, ali je bila računovodska evidenca neodvisno revidirana v skladu z mednarodnimi standardi.
Moreover, those accounts were not even adopted by the shareholders.
Poleg tega te računovodske evidence delničarji sploh niso sprejeli.
The claims made by those companies were therefore rejected.
Zahtevki navedenih družb so bili zato zavrnjeni.
As far as the claim made by Company 2 is concerned, it is noted that the significant adjustments requested by the auditors, having the effect of halving the profits, were only recorded in the annual accounts, but not in the accounts of the company.
Kar zadeva zahtevek družbe 2, je treba opomniti, da so bili bistveni popravki, ki so jih zahtevali revizorji in ki so vplivali na prepolovitev dobička, zabeleženi le v zaključnem računu, ne pa tudi v računovodski evidenci družbe.
The reason for this was that the company wanted to show higher profits in its accounts for other purposes.
Razlog za to je bilo dejstvo, da je hotela družba za druge namene prikazati večje dobičke v svoji računovodski evidenci.
The accounts could therefore not be reconciled with the audited annual accounts, which would have had a direct and significant impact on any dumping calculation.
Računovodska evidenca zato ni mogla biti usklajena z revidiranim zaključnim računom, ki bi lahko neposredno in pomembno vplival na izračun stopnje dampinga.
This led to the conclusion that the company did not have a clear set of accounts used for all purposes.
To je pripeljalo do sklepa, da družba ni imela jasne računovodske evidence, ki bi se uporabljala za vse namene.
In the absence of any further information provided by the company, those findings are hereby confirmed and the claim rejected.
Ker družba ni predložila kakršnih koli drugih podatkov, se ugotovitve potrdijo in zahtevek se zavrne.
In the case of Companies 4 and 5, significant discrepancies were found in the accounts during the verification visit.
V primeru družb 4 in 5 so bila ugotovljena znatna neskladja v računovodski evidenci med obiskom zaradi preveritve.
The companies claimed that those discrepancies were due to clerical mistakes and that the Commission had not made a thorough analysis and misunderstood the situation.
Družbi sta trdili, da so ta neskladja nastala zaradi stvarnih napak in da Komisija ni naredila temeljite analize ter narobe ocenila položaj.
It is firstly recalled that it is on the companies to clarify or remove doubts which may arise during the verification.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da morajo družbe razjasniti ali odpraviti dvome, ki se lahko pojavijo med preverjanjem.
In addition, it is noted that certain requested documents were not provided by the companies during the time dedicated to the verification of the MET claim form and could therefore not be verified and taken into consideration.
Poleg tega je treba opomniti, da družbe nekaterih zahtevanih dokumentov niso zagotovile v času, namenjenem preveritvi obrazca zahtevka za TGO, in zato niso mogli biti preverjeni ter upoštevani.
The discrepancies identified seriously put into question the reliability of the accounts, and it is therefore confirmed that those accounts could not be considered to be audited in line with international standards.
Ugotovljena neskladja resno postavijo pod vprašaj zanesljivost računovodskih evidenc, zato se potrdi, da se te evidence ne morejo šteti za revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi standardi.
In the absence of any further information provided by the companies, those conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claims were rejected.
Ker družbe niso predložile kakršnih koli drugih podatkov, se ugotovitve potrdijo, zahtevki pa so bili zavrnjeni.
The same last two companies and Company 6 claimed that the conclusions that they did not fulfil the third criterion were unfounded.
Isti dve družbi in družba 6 so trdile, da so bili sklepi, da niso izpolnile tretjega merila, neutemeljeni.
Company 4 claimed that the Commission had no plausible grounds to conclude that the price paid by the shareholders in the framework of the privatisation process was reduced.
Družba 4 je trdila, da Komisija ni imela verodostojnih razlogov za sklep, da je bila cena, ki so jo plačali delničarji v okviru privatizacijskega procesa, znižana.
The investigation, however, firstly revealed that the company was valued for only 25 % of its net book value at the time of privatisation, which casts doubts as to the reliability of the valuation report.
Vendar je preiskava najprej pokazala, da je bila družba vrednotena le za 25 % njene čiste knjigovodske vrednosti v času privatizacije, kar vzbuja dvome o zanesljivosti poročila o vrednotenju.
More importantly, it also appeared that the new shareholders only paid a portion of that price for the ownership of the company.
Še pomembnejše pa je poudariti, da se je zdelo tudi, da so novi delničarji plačali le del cene za lastništvo družbe.
The remaining portion was found to have been paid by a third company whose details, namely on ownership, were refused to be disclosed by Company 4.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je preostali del plačala tretja družba, katere podrobnosti o lastništvu družba 4 ni hotela razkriti.
It could therefore not remove the doubts that this third company was State-owned.
Zato dvomi, da je bila ta tretja družba v lasti države, niso mogli biti odpravljeni.
The claim that the information could not be disclosed due to business confidentiality cannot be accepted since in anti-dumping investigations all confidential documents obtained during the verification visit are treated as such by the authorities, in accordance with Article 19(1) of the basic Regulation, and would thus in any event not be further disclosed in any way.
Utemeljitev, da podatki niso mogli biti razkriti zaradi poslovne skrivnosti, ne more biti sprejeta, saj v protidampinški preiskavi vse zaupne dokumente, pridobljene med obiskom zaradi preveritve, pristojni organi v skladu s členom 19(1) osnovne uredbe obravnavajo kot take, in torej v nobenem primeru ne bi bili razkriti.
The claim was therefore rejected.
Zato je bil ta zahtevek zavrnjen.
Company 5 challenged the Commission’s negative MET determination with respect to the third criterion on the grounds that it allegedly purchased its main equipment from a related private company, and that the assets were thus transferred at market prices.
Družba 5 je izpodbijala negativno določitev TGO glede na tretje merilo, ker naj bi družba domnevno kupovala glavno opremo od povezane zasebne družbe in da je bil tako prenos sredstev izveden po tržnih cenah.
It should be noted that in this specific case the Commission’s conclusions were based on the fact that the company originally stated in the MET claim form that all its assets were bought from the open market, which was found incorrect during the verification visit.
Treba je opomniti, da so v tem posebnem primeru sklepi Komisije temeljili na dejstvu, da je družba v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO prvotno navedla, da so bila vsa sredstva kupljena na odprtem trgu, kar pa se je na obisku zaradi preveritve izkazalo kot napačno.
Indeed, it was found that all assets were actually transferred from the company’s shareholder.
V resnici je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bila vsa sredstva dejansko prenesena od delničarja družbe.
The company could not clarify how the assets concerned were originally purchased by its shareholder, and at what price.
Družba ni mogla razjasniti, kako je delničar prvotno kupil zadevna sredstva in po kakšni ceni.
The company therefore failed to demonstrate that the assets were transferred at market prices, and could thus not demonstrate that its production costs and financial situation were not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
Družba zato ni mogla dokazati, da je bil prenos sredstev izveden po tržnih cenah, ter prav tako ni mogla dokazati, da njeni proizvodni stroški in finančno stanje niso bili predmet znatnih izkrivljanj, prenesenih iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema.
By providing misleading information as to the origin of its fixed assets, the verification work was also strongly impeded.
S predložitvijo zavajajočih podatkov glede porekla njenih osnovnih sredstev je bilo močno ovirano tudi preverjanje.
In the absence of any further information, those conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claim was rejected.
Ker družba ni predložila kakršnih koli drugih podatkov, se ugotovitve potrdijo in zahtevek se zavrne.
Company 6 claimed that the fact that all assets are depreciated at the same flat rate should not lead to the conclusion that the financial situation of the company is distorted.
Družba 6 je trdila, da se zaradi dejstva, da so vsa sredstva enako pavšalno amortizirana, ne sme sklepati, da je finančni položaj družbe izkrivljen.
Moreover, the company claimed that the purchase price of the land right use, which was found to be abnormally low by the Commission services, is a pure market transaction, without State interference.
Poleg tega je družba trdila, da je odkupna cena za pravice do rabe zemljišč, za katero so službe Komisije ugotovile, da je neobičajno nizka, čista tržna transakcija, brez vmešavanja države.
Those claims were rejected on the grounds that the use of the same depreciation rate for all assets, by this former collectively owned company, does not reflect the economic reality and implies a significant distortion of the production costs and the financial situation of the firm.
Ti zahtevki so bili zavrnjeni zaradi razlogov, da ista stopnja amortizacije za vsa sredstva, ki jo je uporabila prejšnja družba v skupni lasti, ne odraža gospodarske realnosti in pomeni znatno izkrivljanje proizvodnih stroškov in finančnega stanja podjetja.
As to the acquisition of the State-owned land use right, it involved by nature the State, and the company could not demonstrate that the purchase price, which appeared abnormally low in comparison with the normal annual rent previously paid by the company, reflected market value.
Država mora biti seveda vključena pri pridobitvi pravice do rabe zemljišča, ki je v njeni lasti, in tako družba ni mogla dokazati, da odkupna cena, ki se je zdela neobičajno nizka v primerjavi z normalno letno najemnino, ki jo je prej plačevala družba, odraža tržno vrednost.
It should be noted that some exporting producers also claimed that the Commission’s conclusions not to grant them MET were based on wrong findings.
Treba je opomniti, da so nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki tudi trdili, da so sklepi Komisije, da jim TGO ne odobri, temeljili na napačnih ugotovitvah.
However, they did not provide any additional element in this respect, so that their claims had to be rejected.
Vendar niso zagotovili dodatnih dokazov v zvezi s tem, zato je moral biti njihov zahtevek zavrnjen.
Only one company could provide valid clarifications, while the claims made by the others had to be rejected.
Le ena družba je lahko zagotovila pomembne podatke za razjasnitev stanja, medtem ko so morali biti zahtevki drugih družb zavrnjeni.
More generally, it was claimed by Company 9 that the absence of verification visit was unfavourable to them and discriminatory as compared to those companies that have been subject to a verification visit.
Družba 9 je tudi trdila, da je bilo dejstvo, da pri njih ni bil opravljen obisk zaradi preveritve, zanjo neugodno in v primerjavi z družbami, pri katerih so bili ti obiski opravljeni, diskriminatorno.
Two other companies claimed that carrying out a simultaneous verification visit of the MET claim form and of the questionnaire reply on dumping worked to their disadvantage, and so did the breach of the three months deadline for the Commission to take a decision of MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Dve drugi družbi sta trdili, da sta jim izvajanje hkratnega obiska zaradi preveritve obrazca zahtevka za TGO in odgovorov na vprašalnik o dampingu, kakor tudi kršitev trimesečnega roka, v katerem mora v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe Komisija sprejeti odločitev glede TGO, škodovala.
In this respect, it is recalled that according to Article 16 of the basic Regulation, verification visits are not compulsory and shall be carried out where it is considered appropriate.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 16 osnovne uredbe obiski zaradi preveritve niso obvezni in se izvedejo, kjer se to zdi potrebno.
In the present case, the MET claim by Company 9 was rejected already at the stage of a first analysis since – despite the sending of the deficiency letter – the company failed to show that all the criteria were met.
V tem primeru je bil zahtevek za TGO družbe 9 zavrnjen že v fazi prve analize, saj družba ni mogla dokazati, da je izpolnila vsa merila, kljub poslanemu pismu, v katerem so bile navedene pomanjkljivosti.
As to the other claims, it should be noted that simultaneous verification visits and the non-respect of the three months deadline are explained by the fact that this proceeding involved a large number of exporting producers and that the provisions on sampling could only be used with respect to dumping calculations.
V zvezi z drugimi zahtevki je treba opomniti, da je razlog za hkratne obiske zaradi preveritve in neupoštevanje trimesečnega roka dejstvo, da je v ta postopek vključeno veliko število proizvajalcev uvoznikov in da so se določbe za vzorčenje lahko uporabile le v zvezi z izračunom dampinga.
The investigation therefore entailed a significant and time consuming analysis of each single MET claim form.
Preiskava je zato terjala obširno analizo vsakega posameznega obrazca zahtevka za TGO, kar je zahtevalo veliko časa.
In any event, it is considered that the simultaneity of the verification visits and the non-respect of the deadlines do not entail any apparent legal consequences, nor adverse effects and, as already concluded in previous investigations, a valid MET determination could be made under those circumstances.
V vsakem primeru se šteje, da hkratnost obiskov zaradi preveritve in neupoštevanje teh rokov nimata niti očitnih pravnih posledic niti škodljivega učinka, in kakor je že bilo sklenjeno v prejšnjih preiskavah, se je lahko TGO v teh okoliščinah veljavno določil.
The claims were therefore also rejected.
Zato so bili tudi ti zahtevki zavrnjeni.
Finally, the claim by the complainant that a verification visit of the MET claim forms should be carried out at the premises of all companies concerned was rejected for the reasons explained above in recital (34).
Zahtevek pritožnika, da bi moral biti obisk zaradi preveritve obrazca zahtevka za TGO izveden v prostorih vseh zadevnih družb, je bil zavrnjen zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uvodni izjavi (34) zgoraj.
Individual treatment (IT)
Individualna obravnava („IO“)
It is recalled that individual treatment was granted to 18 companies, 13 of which having claimed but failed to obtain MET, since they were found to meet all the requirements for IT set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila individualna obravnava odobrena 18 družbam, od katerih jih je 13 zahtevalo TGO, a jim ni bil odobren; ugotovljeno je bilo, da so izpolnjevale vse pogoje za IO, določene v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
Three companies which were not granted IT claimed that they were either not granted sufficient time to submit an MET/IT claim form with respect to their subsidiaries or that the limited activity of their subsidiary did not justify the need for a valid MET/IT claim form to be submitted.
Tri družbe, ki jim IO ni bil odobren, so trdile, da jim bodisi ni bilo zagotovljeno dovolj časa za predložitev obrazca zahtevka za TGO/IO za njihove odvisne družbe ali se jim zaradi omejene dejavnosti njihovih odvisnih družb ni zdelo potrebno predložiti obrazca zahtevka za TGO/IO.
In the case of those three companies, it should be noted that no MET/IT claim form was originally submitted within the deadline set for all companies.
V primeru teh treh družb je treba opomniti, da prvotno v roku, določenem za vse družbe, ni bil predložen noben obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO.
Following a first analysis, those companies were requested, by a deficiency letter, to also submit a claim form within a certain deadline with respect to their related companies also active in the sales/production of the product concerned.
Po prvi analizi so bile te družbe s pismom, v katerem so bile navedene pomanjkljivosti, pozvane, da v določenem roku predložijo obrazec zahtevka za njihove povezane družbe, ki so prav tako dejavne pri prodaji/proizvodnji zadevnega izdelka.
No such claim forms were however received, and no additional deadline could be granted in order not to discriminate with those companies that had submitted the relevant information within the granted deadlines.
Vendar družbe takšnih obrazcev zahtevka niso predložile, in da ne bi prišlo do diskriminacije do družb, ki so ustrezne podatke predložile v odobrenem roku, dodatni rok zanje ni mogel biti odobren.
In this respect, it is noted that given the complexity of the case involving a high number of companies, for which MET/IT claims had to be individually examined and provisions on sampling had to be used for the establishment of dumping, granting extensions would also have prevented the completion of the investigation within the deadline.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da bi odobritev podaljšanja glede na zapletenost tega postopka, pri katerem je udeleženo veliko število družb, za katere je moral biti pregledan vsak zahtevek za TGO/IO posebej in so lahko bile določbe za vzorčenje uporabljene le za določitev dampinga, preprečila zaključek preiskave v roku.
In addition, the fact that the activity of a company is limited does not exempt that company from proving it meets the relevant criteria.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da je dejavnost družbe omejena, te ne odvezuje, da dokaže izpolnjevanje ustreznih meril.
The claims were therefore rejected.
Zato so bili ti zahtevki zavrnjeni.
One exporting producer claimed that the selection of the sample was unfair since it was merely based on export volumes considerations, and that it should have been included in the sample considering the high added value of the products it exported to the Community.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je bil izbor vzorca nepošten, saj je temeljil le na premislekih glede obsega izvoza, in da bi moral biti vključen v vzorec upoštevajoč visoko dodano vrednost izdelkov, ki jih je izvozil v Skupnost.
This claim was, however, rejected since the selection of the companies included in the sample was done in conformity with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports that could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Vendar je bil ta zahtevek zavrnjen, saj je izbor družb, vključenih v vzorec, opravljen v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe, tj. na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza, ki je lahko bil razumno preiskan v času, ki je bil na voljo.
Another exporting producer contested the conclusions that, since it had explicitly refused to be included in the sample, it could not be considered a cooperating party.
Drug proizvajalec izvoznik je izpodbijal sklepe, da se ga ni moglo šteti kot sodelujočo stranko, ker je izrecno zavrnil vključitev v vzorec.
The company firstly claimed that pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation the selection of the sample must be made with the consent of the parties, thus leaving them the possibility not to be part of the sample.
Družba je najprej trdila, da mora biti v skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe izbira vzorca opravljena s soglašanjem strank, torej jim dati možnost, da niso del vzorca.
Secondly, it claimed that according to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a verification visit is not a necessary condition for demonstrating that a company fulfils the five relevant criteria, so that it could still be granted MET.
Kot drugo je trdila, da v skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe obisk zaradi preveritve ni nujen pogoj za dokazovanje, da družba izpolnjuje pet ustreznih meril, tako da ji je bil lahko TGO kljub temu odobren.
It argued that this is evidenced by the fact that MET has been granted to 22 companies, but only 7 companies were visited on the spot.
Trdila je, da je to razvidno iz dejstva, da je bil TGO odobren 22 družbam, vendar je bil obisk na kraju samem opravljen le pri 7 družbah.