natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard it is recalled that AMI itself mentions this category as containing uses ‘such as laundry film, hygiene film, tissue overwrap and general surface protection films’.
Treba je opomniti, da sam AMI v to kategorijo uvršča tudi uporabe, „kot so folije za perilo, higienska folija, ovitki iz tissue papirja in folije za zaščito površin“.
It is to be noted that the mentioned end-use applications are defined as ‘film’ and thus do not fall under the category of bags and sacks.
Treba je opomniti, da so navedene končne uporabe opredeljene kot „folija“ in da potemtakem ne sodijo v kategorijo vreč in vrečk.
Moreover, the on-the-spot verifications carried out in the course of the investigation at the premises of seven production plants of five Community producers in two countries showed that film on the reel, extruded externally, was not used in the production of the like product.
Poleg tega so preverjanja na kraju samem, ki so se izvedla v teku preiskave v prostorih sedmih proizvodnih obratov petih proizvajalcev Skupnosti v dveh državah, pokazala, da se folija na kolutu, zunanje iztiskana, ni uporabljala za proizvodnjo podobnega izdelka.
Furthermore, the verification visits carried out at the premises of 21 exporting producers in the three countries concerned gave no support to the claim that film on the reel, extruded externally, would be used in the production of the product concerned.
Poleg tega se na preveritvenih obiskih v prostorih 21 proizvajalcev izvoznikov v treh zadevnih državah ni potrdila ustreznost trditve, da se folija na kolutu, zunanje iztiskana, uporablja za proizvodnjo zadevnega proizvoda.
Based on the above, the argument that a large part of the category ‘film on the reel’ should be included in the production of the like product in the Community had to be rejected.
Glede na zgornje navedbe je treba zavrniti utemeljitev, da je treba velik del kategorije „folija na kolutu“ vključiti v proizvodnjo podobnega izdelka v Skupnosti.
It was also claimed by some parties that the end use application defined in the report as ‘other bags/sacks’, representing 11,9 % [8] of the total end uses, should be included in the Community production figures.
Nekatere stranke so tudi trdile, da je treba k podatkom o proizvodnji Skupnosti prišteti končno uporabo, opredeljeno kot „druge vrečke/vreče“, ki predstavljajo 11,9 % [8] skupne končne uporabe.
It is to be noted that these parties did not substantiate this claim in terms of quantities.
Treba je opomniti, da te stranke niso količinsko utemeljile te zahteve.
This category is reported as ‘other film’ in ‘AMI's guide to the polyethylene industry in Europe’ in its country-specific production figures and is not defined as bags or sacks on this level.
Ta kategorija je v podatkih o proizvodnji za posamezne države v priročniku AMI o polietilenski industriji v Evropi poimenovana „druge folije“ in na tej ravni ni opredeljena kot vreče ali vrečke.
Whilst it is unclear which products are included by AMI in the category ‘other sacks and bags’, at least all those products not falling under the product description should be excluded from the estimate.
Sicer ni jasno, katere izdelke je AMI vključil v kategorijo „druge vreče in vrečke“, vendar je treba iz ocene izključiti vsaj vse tiste izdelke, ki ne ustrezajo opisu izdelka.
In this regard, according to certain parties, the category other ‘sacks and bags’ also includes film used for ‘FFS — packaging’ for food or ‘form, fill and seal — packaging’, which is a type of packaging where a bag is formed, filled and sealed in an integrated process.
Tako neka stranka trdi, da kategorija druge „vreče in vrečke“ vključuje tudi folijo, ki se uporablja za „embalažo FFS“ za hrano oziroma „embalažo izdelaj, napolni, zapri“ (form, fill and seal), kjer se vrečka izdela, napolni in zapre v enem postopku.
FFS equipment is typically fully automatic.
Oprema FFS je navadno popolnoma avtomatizirana.
This product is not sold as bags or sacks nor do imports of this product fall within CN codes 39232100, 39232910. and 39232990.
Ta izdelek se ne prodaja kot vreče ali vrečke in niti izvoz tega izdelka se ne uvršča pod oznake KN 39232100, 39232910 in 39232990.
Given that the estimates of the interested parties, concerning the share of the product under investigation in this group, varied between 15 % and 100 % and were not substantiated it was not possible to make an accurate estimation as to which proportion of this group should be included in the product under investigation.
Ker so ocene zainteresiranih strank glede deleža izdelka, ki se preiskuje, v tej skupini segale od 15 % do 100 % in niso bile utemeljene, ni bilo mogoče natančno oceniti, kateri delež te skupine bi bilo treba vključiti v izdelek, ki se preiskuje.
Therefore, in view of the fact that there was an absence of any substantiated information in this regard, it was considered reasonable to include 50 % of this product category for the purposes of this calculation.
In ker tako ni bilo nobenih utemeljenih informacij glede tega, se je v ta izračun zdelo razumno vključiti 50 % kategorije tega izdelka.
The resulting production in this group would thus be in the range from 363000 to 387000 tonnes.
Tako dobljena proizvodnja v tej skupini bi tako segala od 363000 do 387000 ton.
Certain parties claimed that up to 1 million tonnes of recycled material would be used for the production of the like product.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da naj bi se do milijon ton recikliranih surovin uporabilo za proizvodnjo podobnega izdelka.
According to AMI approximately 1 million tonnes [9] of reclaimed material would indeed be used in polyethylene extrusion.
Glede na podatke AMI se bo približno milijon ton [9] predelanih surovin dejansko uporabilo za ekstruzijo polietilena.
AMI does not specify into which particular product categories this usage can be allocated.
AMI ne določa natančno, v katere določene proizvodne kategorije je mogoče uvrstiti to uporabo.
Moreover, the on-the-spot verifications showed that there is a very limited supply of post-consumer recycled material on the market, whilst industrial waste created in the production process is efficiently recycled.
Poleg tega so preverjanja na kraju samem pokazala, da je na trgu dobava že uporabljenih recikliranih surovin zelo omejena, medtem ko se industrijski odpadki, ki nastanejo v proizvodnem postopku, učinkovito reciklirajo.
In this regard, it is to be noted that industrial waste is already included in the production figures when used as virgin material and thus any inclusion of this quantity in the production would result in double counting.
Tako je treba opozoriti, da so industrijski odpadki, ki se uporabljajo kot nedotaknjene surovine, že vključeni v podatke o proizvodnji in da lahko kakršno koli vključevanje teh količin v proizvodnjo privede do dvojnega štetja.
The investigation showed that post-consumer recycled material is mainly used for production of refuse sacks.
Preiskava je pokazala, da se že uporabljene reciklirane surovine uporabljajo predvsem v proizvodnji vreč za smeti.
Certain parties argued that up to 25 % of the raw material of this category of the like product would be post-consumer recycled material.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da do 25 % surovin te kategorije podobnega izdelka predstavlja že uporabljene reciklirane surovine.
Based on the information received from interested parties this could amount to 20 % of the production of these bags.
Sodeč po podatkih, ki so jih posredovale zainteresirane stranke, bi to lahko dosegalo do 20 % proizvodnje teh vreč.
As this quantity is not already included in AMI’s end-use estimate of this product this quantity should be added on top of this production estimate.
Ker ta količina še ni vključena v oceno AMI o končni uporabi tega izdelka, je treba to količino prišteti k tej proizvodni oceni.
Therefore, a corresponding adjustment of 20 % was made in the quantity of refuse sacks resulting in additional production of the product concerned in the range from 88000 to 94000 tonnes.
Tako je bila količina odpadnih vreč ustrezno popravljena za 20 %, zaradi česar se je proizvodnja zadevnega izdelka povečala v obsegu od 88000 do 94000 ton.
The resulting total production quantity, based on the considerations presented in recitals 135 to 145, is in the range from 1311000 to 1398000 tonnes of product under investigation.
Tako dobljena skupna proizvedena količina na podlagi dejavnikov, predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah 135 do 145, sega od 1311000 do 1398000 ton izdelka, ki se preiskuje.
This estimate however contains all refuse bags and it should be recalled that some refuse sacks can be more than 100 microns in thickness and thus outside the product definition.
Vendar ocena vključuje tudi vse vreče za odpadke in treba je opozoriti, da debelina nekaterih vreč za odpadke presega 100 mikronov, tako da ne sodijo v opredelitev izdelka.
Therefore this range represents rather an overestimate of the production.
Zato je ta ocena proizvodnje nekoliko pretirana.
To arrive at the Community production, the production of companies excluded from the Community industry representing 119000 tonnes of production should be subtracted from the above figures.
Da bi dobili proizvodnjo Skupnosti, je treba od zgornjih podatkov odšteti proizvodnjo družb, ki so izključene iz industrije Skupnosti in predstavljajo 119000 ton proizvodnje.
This results in a Community production in the range from 1193000 to 1279000 tonnes of production of the product under investigation.
Proizvodnja Skupnosti tako znaša od 1193000 do 1279000 ton proizvodnje izdelka, ki se preiskuje.
The estimate of the Community production at initiation of the proceeding of 1240000 tonnes falls within the range of this calculation and the 25 % threshold concerning the support to the case is fulfilled to the upper limit of the range.
Ocena ob začetku postopka, da proizvodnja Skupnosti znaša 1240000 ton, se uvršča v območje tega izračuna in prag 25 % v podporo tej zadevi je izpolnjen do zgornje meje.
The above analysis clearly shows that the information referred to by certain parties mentioned above in recital 134 is not such as to undermine the estimate of the Community production of the product under investigation prepared by the Commission which is referred to in recital 150.
Zgornja analiza jasno kaže, da informacije, na katere so se sklicevale nekatere stranke, navedene v uvodni izjavi 134, niso take narave, da bi spodkopale oceno proizvodnje Skupnosti za izdelek, ki se preiskuje, iz uvodne izjave 150, ki jo je pripravila Komisija.
On the basis of the above, the arguments concerning the lack of support of the case made by these parties had to be rejected.
Glede na zgornje navedbe je treba argumente o prenizki podpori primera, ki so jih podale nekatere stranke, zavrniti.
At initiation stage, the accumulated production of the 29 complaining Community producers represented 331500 tonnes, i.e. 26,7 % in relation to the total Community production of 1240000 tonnes measured at the stage of initiation.
Na začetni stopnji je akumulirana proizvodnja 29 proizvajalcev Skupnosti pritožnikov predstavljala 331500 ton, tj. 26,7 % v primerjavi skupne proizvodnje Skupnosti 1240000 ton, izmerjenih na začetku postopka.
The accumulated production of Community producers opposing the proceeding amounted to less than half of the aforementioned amount of support.
Akumulirana proizvodnja proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ki nasprotujejo postopku, je dosegla manj kot polovico prej navedenega zneska podpore.
In addition, it is noted that another 21 companies with a total production of 302000 tonnes supported the complaint at initiation stage.
Poleg tega je treba opomniti, da je drugih 21 družb s celotno proizvodnjo 302000 ton v začetni fazi podprlo pritožbo.
Thus, in total the complaint was supported by Community producers representing more than 50 % in relation to the total Community production of 1240000 tonnes.
Torej so skupno pritožbo podprli proizvajalci Skupnosti, ki predstavljajo več kot 50 % v primerjavi s celotno proizvodnjo Skupnosti v višini 1240000 ton.
During the investigation five of the complaining Community producers failed to cooperate with the investigation.
Med preiskavo pet od proizvajalcev Skupnosti pritožnikov ni sodelovalo v preiskavi.
At the same time seven other producers supporting the proceeding, cooperated with the investigation.
Hkrati je sedem drugih proizvajalcev, ki podpirajo postopek, pri preiskavi sodelovalo.
Another three cooperating companies were excluded from the definition of the Community industry and their production was thus not included in the production of the Community industry as one company was importing significant quantities from its related exporter in China and two other companies imported significant quantities in relation to their production in the Community from the countries concerned.
Druge tri sodelujoče družbe so bile izključene iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, tako da se njihova proizvodnja ni štela v proizvodnjo industrije Skupnosti, saj je ena družba uvažala znatne količine od svojega povezanega izvoznika na Kitajskem, drugi dve družbi pa sta uvažali znatne količine v zvezi s svojo proizvodnjo iz zadevnih držav v Skupnost.
A fourth company, which opposed the proceeding and which did not cooperate with the investigation as a Community producer, was also excluded from the definition of the Community industry as it had a related exporting producer in one of the countries concerned and it imported significant volumes of the product concerned into the Community in relation to its production in the Community.
Četrta družba, ki je nasprotovala postopku in ki ni sodelovala pri preiskavi kot proizvajalec Skupnosti, je bila tudi izključena iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, saj je imela povezanega proizvajalca izvoznika v eni od zadevnih držav in je uvažala znatne količine zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost v povezavi s svojo proizvodnjo v Skupnosti.
Certain parties claimed that the company opposing the proceeding, British Polyethylene Industries plc (BPI), had been excluded from the definition of the Community industry and thereby from the total Community production, whereas another company supporting the proceeding, Cedo Ltd, had been included, even though both companies had a similar situation having production both in the Community and in the countries concerned.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da je bila družba, ki je nasprotovala postopku, British Polyethylene Industries plc („BPI“), izključena iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti in s tem iz celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti, medtem ko je bila neka druga družba, ki je postopek podprla, Cedo Ltd., vključena, čeprav sta bili obe družbi v podobnem položaju, saj je njuna proizvodnja potekala tako v Skupnosti kot v zadevnih državah.
To this end it has to be noted that both companies were treated on an equal basis and both companies were excluded based on the reasons set out in recital 153.
Zato je treba opomniti, da sta bili obe družbi obravnavani enako in da sta bili obe izključeni iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 153.
Certain parties argued that two of sampled Community producers should be excluded from the definition of the Community industry as they imported considerable quantities of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Thailand.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da je treba dva vzorčena proizvajalca Skupnosti izključiti iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, ker sta uvažala znatne količine zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK in Tajske.
In this respect, it should be firstly noted that, whereas it is indeed a long-standing practice that importing Community producers should be excluded from the Community industry if they are either shielded from dumping or benefiting from it, they are not excluded if it is found that the Community producers were forced to have a temporary and very limited recourse to imports, because of the depressed price situation in the Community market.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej opomniti, da je dejansko dolgotrajna praksa, da se izključi proizvajalce Skupnosti uvoznike iz opredelitve industrije Skupnosti, če so ti zaščiteni pred dampingom ali imajo od njega koristi, ne izključi pa se jih, če se ugotovi, da so bili proizvajalci Skupnosti prisiljeni v začasen ali zelo omejen uvoz zaradi zelo znižanih cen na trgu Skupnosti.
In this case, the total imports of these two companies during the IP represented 1 % and 0,1 % of their respective total production.
V tem primeru je skupen uvoz teh dveh družb v OP znašal 1 % oziroma 0,1 % njune celotne proizvodnje.
Given the small quantities at stake, the two Community producers can be considered part of the definition of the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
Glede na majhne količine uvoza se lahko v smislu člena 4(1) osnovne uredbe proizvajalci Skupnosti štejejo kot del opredelitve industrije Skupnosti.
On this basis, the argument was rejected.
Ta utemeljitev se je zato zavrnila.
The 24 complaining Community producers and the seven other producers having cooperated with the investigation are therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
Za 24 proizvajalcev pritožnikov Skupnosti in sedem drugih proizvajalcev, ki so sodelovali pri preiskavi, se torej šteje, da sestavljajo industrijo Skupnosti v smislu členov 4(1) in 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
Overall these companies represent approximately 358000 tonnes or 31 % of the Community production measured during the investigation.
Na splošno predstavljajo te družbe 358000 ton oziroma 31 % proizvodnje Skupnosti, izmerjene med preiskavo.
It is noted that another nine companies, representing 57000 tonnes of production expressed their support to the investigation, however, these companies did not manage to cooperate fully with the investigation and were thus not included in the definition of the Community industry.
Poleg tega je še devet družb, ki predstavljajo 57000 ton proizvodnje, izrazilo podporo preiskavi, vendar jim ni uspelo polno sodelovati pri njej, zato niso bile vključene v opredelitev industrije Skupnosti.
The apparent Community consumption was established on the basis of data reported in the complaint lodged by the complainant.
Navidezna potrošnja Skupnosti je bila ugotovljena na podlagi podatkov iz pritožbe, ki jo je vložil pritožnik.
The complainant's market intelligence in various markets and data derived from market information provided by two commercial agencies was taken as basis.
Podlaga so bile pritožnikove tržne informacije na različnih trgih in podatki, pridobljeni iz tržnih informacij, ki sta jih zagotovila dva trgovska zastopnika.
The information gathered concerning the market in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain was then used to extrapolate the community consumption in the remaining Member States.
Zbrane informacije o trgih v Belgiji, Franciji, Italiji, Luksemburgu, na Nizozemskem in v Španiji so se nato uporabile za ekstrapolacijo potrošnje Skupnosti na preostalih trgih.
Based on the above analysis, the Community consumption increased throughout the period considered by 6 % from the beginning of the period considered, i.e. from 1582000 tonnes in the year 2001 to 1674000 tonnes in the IP.
Na podlagi zgornje analize se je potrošnja Skupnosti v vsem obravnavanem obdobju povečala za 6 % od začetka obravnavanega obdobja, tj. s 1582000 ton v letu 2001 na 1674000 ton v OP.
Detailed data, expressed in tonnes, is as follows:
Podrobnejši podatki, izraženi v tonah:
Source: Complaint
Vir: Pritožba.
IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED
UVOZ IZ ZADEVNIH DRŽAV
The Commission examined whether imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je preučila, ali je treba uvoz nekaterih vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas s poreklom iz zadevnih držav oceniti kumulativno v skladu s členom 3(4) osnovne uredbe.
This Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations are to be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Community product.
Ta člen določa, da se učinki uvoza iz ene ali več držav, ki je (so) sočasno predmet protidampinških preiskav, ocenijo kumulativno samo, če se ugotovi, da (a) je stopnja dampinga, ugotovljena za uvoz iz vsake od teh držav, večja od de minimis, kot ga opredeljuje člen 9(3) osnovne uredbe, in da obseg uvoza iz vsake od teh držav ni zanemarljiv; in da (b) kumulativna ocena učinkov uvoza ustreza konkurenčnim pogojem med uvoženimi izdelki in konkurenčnim pogojem med uvoženimi izdelki na eni strani in podobnimi izdelki Skupnosti na drugi strani.
As the overall dumping margin for Malaysia was found to be below 2 %, i.e. below de minimis, imports from Malaysia were excluded from the cumulative assessment.
Ker se je za Malezijo ugotovilo, da splošna stopnja dampinga ne dosega 2 %, tj., je pod de minimis, je bil uvoz iz Malezije izključen iz kumulativne ocene.
In that regard, the dumping margins established in relation to the imports originating in the PRC and in Thailand were found to be above the de minimis level of 2 % set forth in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.
Tako se je za stopnji dampinga, ugotovljeni v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz LRK in Tajske, ugotovilo, da presegata 2-odstotno raven de minimis, določeno v členu 9(3) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, since during the IP imports from the PRC represented a market share of 14,4 % and imports from Thailand a market share of 4 %, the volumes of imports from the PRC and Thailand were not negligible.
Ker je med OP uvoz iz LRK predstavljal 14,4-odstotni tržni delež, uvoz iz Tajske pa 4-odstotni tržni delež, količina uvoza iz LRK in Tajske ni zanemarljiva.
As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that the products imported from the PRC and Thailand were alike in all their essential physical characteristics.
Glede konkurenčnih pogojev je preiskava pokazala, da so si izdelki, ki se uvažajo iz LRK in Tajske, po vseh bistvenih značilnostih podobni.
Furthermore, on that basis, plastic sacks and bags imported from the PRC and Thailand were interchangeable and were marketed in the Community during the period considered through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions.
Poleg tega so bile vreče in vrečke iz plastičnih mas, uvožene iz LRK in Tajske, zamenljive in so v obravnavanem obdobju prišle na trg Skupnosti po primerljivih prodajnih poteh in po podobnih prodajnih pogojih.
Imports from both countries showed similar trends of prices and volumes and both showed significant levels of undercutting.
Uvoz iz obeh držav je pokazal podobna cenovna gibanja in količine in obakrat je bila razvidna znatna stopnja nelojalnega nižanja cen.
Moreover, it is recalled that the imported product was found to be alike to plastic sacks and bags produced in the Community and as such competes with them under the same conditions of competition.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je bilo za uvoženi izdelek ugotovljeno, da je enak vrečam in vrečkam iz plastičnih mas, proizvedenim v Skupnosti, in da jim kot tak konkurira pod enakimi konkurenčnimi pogoji.
In the light of the above, it is considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from the PRC and Thailand should therefore be examined cumulatively.
Glede na zgoraj povedano velja, da so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz člena 3(4) osnovne uredbe in da je zato treba uvoz iz LRK in Tajske preučiti kumulativno.
VOLUME OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED AND MARKET SHARE
OBSEG ZADEVNEGA UVOZA IN TRŽNI DELEŽ