natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In one case it had to be examined whether a transaction-to-transaction method would be possible, because the average-to-average method did not reflect the full degree of dumping practiced (see recitals (133) to (135)).
V enem primeru je bilo treba preučiti, ali je mogoče uporabiti metodo po transakcijah, ker metoda po povprečjih ni v celoti odražala stopnje dampinga, ki se je izvajal (glej uvodne izjave od (133) do (135)).
A transaction-to-transaction comparison was, however, not possible, due to the fact that the number of the domestic and the export transactions was significantly different.
Primerjava po transakcijah pa ni bila mogoča, ker se je število domačih poslov močno razlikovalo od števila izvoznih poslov.
Furthermore, no domestic transactions coinciding in time with export transactions could be found.
Ugotoviti ni bilo mogoče niti ene domače transakcije, ki bi se časovno ujemala s kakšno izvozno transakcijo.
In cases where the pattern of export prices differed significantly among time periods, and the method described in recitals (43) and (44) did not reflect the full degree of dumping taking place, the weighted average normal value was compared to prices of all individual export transactions, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.
V primerih, kjer se je vzorec izvoznih cen močno razlikoval v različnih časovnih obdobjih in metoda, opisana v uvodnih izjavah (43) in (44), ni v celoti odražala dampinga, ki se izvaja, se je v skladu s členom 2(11) osnovne uredbe tehtana povprečna normalna vrednost primerjala s cenami vseh posameznih izvoznih poslov.
For those exporting producers found to be related companies, an average dumping margin was calculated in accordance with the standard practice of the Commission for related exporting producers.
Za proizvajalce-izvoznike, za katere se je pokazalo, da so povezane družbe, je bila povprečna stopnja dampinga izračunana v skladu s standardno prakso Komisije za povezane proizvajalce-izvoznike.
RESIDUAL DUMPING MARGIN
STOPNJA PREOSTALEGA DAMPINGA
For non-cooperating companies, a ‘residual’ dumping margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.
Za nesodelujoče družbe je bila v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov določena stopnja „preostalega“ dampinga.
In order to determine the residual dumping margin, the level of cooperation was first established.
Za določitev stopnje preostalega dampinga je bila najprej določena stopnja sodelovanja.
The level of cooperation was considered to be high when the volume of exports by the cooperating exporting producers was close to that provided by Eurostat for the country concerned and there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from cooperating.
Stopnja sodelovanja je bila visoka, če je bila količina izvoza sodelujočih proizvajalcev-izvoznikov blizu količini, ki jo je za zadevno državo zagotovil Eurostat, in ni bilo vzroka za prepričanje, da se je kateri koli proizvajalec-izvoznik vzdržal sodelovanja.
In this case it was decided to set the residual dumping margin at the level of the cooperating company with the highest dumping margin, in order to ensure the effectiveness of any measure.
Sklenjeno je bilo, da se stopnja preostalega dampinga v tem primeru določi po stopnji sodelujoče družbe z najvišjo stopnjo dampinga, zato da se zagotovi učinkovitost kakršnega koli ukrepa.
Where the level of cooperation was low, the residual dumping margin was determined on the basis of the highest dumped and representative model for another cooperating producer.
Kjer je bila stopnja sodelovanja nizka, je bila stopnja preostalega dampinga določena na podlagi najvišjega dumpinškega in reprezentativnega modela za drugega sodelujočega proizvajalca.
This approach was also considered necessary in order to avoid giving a bonus for non-cooperation and in view of the fact that there were no indications that a non-cooperating party had dumped at a lower level.
Ta pristop je bil potreben tudi zato, da nesodelovanje ne bi prinašalo bonusa, in zato, ker ni bilo nobenih znakov, da je nesodelujoča stranka damping izvajala na nižji stopnji.
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
LJUDSKA REPUBLIKA KITAJSKA
Market Economy Treatment (MET)
Tržno gospodarska obravnava (MET)
In anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the Basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c).
V protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozi iz LRK se za tiste proizvajalce, ki izpolnjujejo merila, določene v členu 2(7)(c), normalna vrednost določi v skladu z odstavki od 1 do 6 člena 2 osnovne uredbe.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation, fulfilment of which the applicant companies have to demonstrate, are set out in summarised form below:
Merila v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, katerih izpolnjevanje morajo zadevne družbe dokazati, so na kratko in za lažjo referenco v povzeti obliki navedeni spodaj:
business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant State interference;
poslovne odločitve in stroški so izvedeni kot odgovor na razmere na trgu in brez večjega poseganja države;
accounting records are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;
računovodske evidence se neodvisno revidirajo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi in veljajo za vse namene;
there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;
iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema niso prenesena nobena večja izkrivljanja;
legal certainty and stability are provided by bankruptcy and property laws;
pravno varnost in stabilnost zagotavljajo zakoni o stečaju in pravo lastninskih razmerij;
currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.
izmenjava valut poteka po tržni stopnji.
Five exporting producers in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers.
Pet proizvajalcev-izvoznikov iz LRK je zahtevalo MET v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in odgovorilo na obrazce zahtevka MET za proizvajalce-izvoznike.
For these companies, the Commission sought and verified at the premises of these companies all information submitted in the MET applications and deemed necessary.
Komisija je za te družbe poiskala, in v njihovih prostorih tudi preverila, vse informacije, ki so jih te družbe predložile v zahtevkih MET in so se Komisiji zdele potrebne.
The investigation showed that only one of the five companies mentioned above fulfilled all the criteria required and it was therefore granted MET.
Preiskava je pokazala, da samo ena od petih zgoraj omenjenih družb izpolnjuje vse zahtevane pogoje in ji je zato MET bil odobren.
This exporting producer in the PRC which was granted MET is:
Proizvajalec-izvoznik v LRK, ki mu je MET bil odobren, je:
Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd.
Far Eastern Industries (Šanghaj) Ltd.
The remaining four claims had to be rejected.
Preostali štirje zahtevki so bili zavrnjeni.
The following table summarizes the determination for the four companies for which MET was not granted against each of the five criteria as set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation.
Spodnja tabela povzema odločitve za štiri družbe, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, za vsakega od petih meril, določenih v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of cooperating Chinese exporters.
Vir: Preverjeni odgovori sodelujočih kitajskih izvoznikov na vprašalnik
Article 2(7)(c) indent 1
Člen 2(7)(c), alinea 1
Article 2(7)(c) indent 2
Člen 2(7)(c), alinea 2
Article 2(7)(c) indent 3
Člen 2(7)(c), alinea 3
Article 2(7)(c) indent 4
Člen 2(7)(c), alinea 4
Article 2(7)(c) indent 5
Člen 2(7)(c), alinea 5
Not met
Neizpolnjen
Met
Izpolnjen
The companies concerned were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Zadevnim strankam je bila ponujena priložnost, da izrazijo pripombe na zgornje ugotovitve.
All four companies to which MET was not granted disagreed with the determinations made and claimed that they should be granted MET.
Nobena od štirih družb, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, se z odločitvami ni strinjala; vse so trdile, da bi jim bilo treba MET odobriti.
Concerning the first criterion, i.e. that business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values, one company objected to the Commission's conclusion that it received a State subsidy and therefore costs did not entirely reflect market values.
V zvezi s prvim merilom, tj. da so poslovne odločitve izvedene kot odgovor na razmere na trgu, brez večjega poseganja države, in da stroški odražajo tržne vrednosti, je ena družba ugovarjala sklepu Komisije, da je prejela državno subvencijo in da zato stroški niso v celoti odražali tržnih vrednosti.
In this case, the collectively owned shareholder contributed assets when the company was established and was not compensated for the increased value of the company when subsequently selling its shares.
V tem primeru je delničar v kolektivni lasti prispeval premoženje, ko je družba bila ustanovljena, in ni prejel nadomestila za povečano vrednost družbe, ko je kasneje prodajal svoje delnice.
During the on-spot verification evidence was collected confirming that the State owned shareholder was not compensated for such increase in value.
Med preverjanjem na kraju samem so bili zbrani dokazi, ki potrjujejo, da delničar v državni lasti ni prejel nadomestila za takšno povečanje vrednosti.
Due to this financial benefit, the company did not have to pay the market value for the assets necessary to produce the product concerned.
Zaradi te finančne koristi družbi ni bilo treba plačati tržne vrednosti za sredstva, ki so potrebna za proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
Consequently, decisions regarding costs and inputs were not considered to be made in response to market signals.
Na podlagi tega se sklepi v zvezi s stroški in vložki niso obravnavali, kot da so izvedeni kot odgovor na razmere na trgu.
In addition, the company tried to hide possible State interference.
Poleg tega pa je družba poskušala skriti možno poseganje države.
Indeed, when reviewing the translation of the Chinese version of the company's business licence, it was found that information concerning the business scope of its shareholder, in particular the reference to management and operation of the town-owned assets, was blatantly omitted.
Pri pregledu prevoda kitajske različice komercialnega dovoljenja družbe je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile informacije v zvezi s poslovnim obsegom njenega delničarja, zlasti sklicevanje na upravo in delovanje sredstev v lasti mesta, očitno izpuščene.
Therefore, it had to be concluded that the exporting producer did not provide sufficient information that it was operating under market economy conditions.
Zato je bilo treba zaključiti, da proizvajalec-izvoznik ni zagotovil zadostnih informacij, da je deloval v okviru pogojev tržnega gospodarstva.
None of the arguments brought forward by the company concerned subsequent to the disclosure could reverse this conclusion and the claim had to be rejected.
Noben argument, ki ga je zadevna družba predstavila po obvestilu, ni spremenil tega sklepa, zato je bil zahtevek zavrnjen.
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, four companies submitted that they are fulfilling the criterion because their accounting records are independently audited.
V zvezi z drugim merilom, tj. da imajo podjetja en jasen niz temeljnih računovodskih evidenc, ki so neodvisno revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, so štiri družbe predložile, da to merilo izpolnjujejo, ker so njihove računovodske evidence neodvisno revidirane.
However, it was found that the auditor's reports of three of the companies did not mention several serious problems (including non-respect of basic international accounting rules) detected during the on-spot verification, or explain changes in the accounting policy of the companies concerned.
Ugotovljeno pa je bilo, da revizorjevo poročilo treh družb ni omenjalo več resnih problemov (vključno z nespoštovanjem osnovnih mednarodnih računovodskih pravil), ki so bili ugotovljeni med preverjanjem na kraju samem, niti ni razložilo sprememb v računovodski politiki zadevnih družb.
Another company was found not to reflect in its accounts the recommendations made by its auditor.
Za drugo družbo je bilo ugotovljeno, da v svojih računih ni upoštevala priporočil svojega revizorja.
Therefore, it had to be concluded that the accounting records of all four 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 sklenjeno, da računovodske evidence zadevnih štirih družb niso bile revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, kot je zahtevano v drugi alinei člena 2(7)(c), osnovne uredbe, in zahtevki so bili zavrnjeni.
Regarding the third criterion, 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 tri družbe predložile, da iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Komisije, niso bila prenesena večja izkrivljanja.
In one case, this claim had to be rejected because it was found that the company concerned received an interest-free loan from the government and several other subsidies.
V enem primeru je zahtevek bil zavrnjen, ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je zadevna družba od vlade prejela posojilo brez obresti in več drugih subvencij.
This means that there are significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system having an impact on the production costs.
To pomeni, da so iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema prenesena večja izkrivljanja, ki imajo vpliv na proizvodne stroške.
As far as the second company is concerned, no reconciliation could be established between the amounts due and those actually paid for the company's land use rights.
Pri drugi družbi ni bilo mogoče doseči izravnave med zapadlimi zneski in zneski, ki jih je družba dejansko plačala za pravice rabe zemljišča.
Furthermore, and this relates also to the second criterion, this company's depreciation of intangible assets was not made according to accounting standards.
Nadalje, in tudi to se nanaša na drugo merilo, družba amortizacije neopredmetenih sredstev ni izvajala v skladu z računovodskimi standardi.
A third company argued that the fact that it could not submit any evidence concerning the payment of its capital contribution by the shareholders, as determined by the Articles of Association, was unrelated to any significant distortion from the former non-market economy system, because the interests involved were private.
Tretja družba je dokazovala, da dejstvo, da ni predložila dokazov, da je bil vplačani kapital izveden v skladu z aktom o ustanovitvi, ni povezano z večjim izkrivljanjem, prenesenim iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema, saj so bili zadevni interesi zasebni.
The investigation revealed, however, that the rules regarding the company paid in capital were not enforced by the Chinese authorities.
Kljub temu je raziskava pokazala, da pravila v zvezi z družbo, plačano s kapitalom, niso bila upoštevana.
Therefore, it was concluded that this company was subject to a significant distortion carried over from the non-market economy system and its costs, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, were significantly distorted.
Zato je bilo zaključeno, da je ta družba predmet večjega izkrivljanja, prenesenega iz prejšnjega netržnega gospodarskega sistema, in da so njeni stroški, zlasti v povezavi z amortizacijo sredstev, močno izkrivljeni.
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.
Na podlagi tega je bilo sklenjeno, da zadevne družbe ne izpolnjujejo pogojev, iz tretje alinee člena 2(7)(c), osnovne uredbe, in njihovi zahtevki so zato bili zavrnjeni.
One company argued that the Commission had made a determination regarding its application for MET beyond the three month period mentioned under Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation, and that this determination was therefore not valid.
Ena družba je dokazovala, da je Komisija svojo odločitev glede zahtevka za MET izvedla po poteku obdobja treh mesecev, omenjenega v okviru člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, ter da zato ta odločitev ni veljavna.
In this respect it is noted that the Commission granted several extensions to the deadline to the Chinese exporting producers concerned, including the above mentioned company, which had major difficulties to fill in the MET claim forms within the deadline set in the notice of initiation.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Komisija zadevnim kitajskim proizvajalcem-izvoznikom, vključno z zgoraj omenjeno družbo, odobrila več podaljšanj rokov, saj so imeli velike težave pri izpolnjevanju obrazcev zahtevkov MET v okviru roka, določenega v obvestilu o začetku.
It is also noted that most MET claims received were deficient and required a number of substantial clarifications and additional information which delayed the investigation.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je bila večina prejetih zahtevkov MET nezadostnih, kar je zahtevalo številne celovite pojasnitve in dodatne informacije, to pa je zavlačevalo preiskavo.
Finally, the complexity of a number of issues such as the company structures and sales channels as well as the serious problems found during the on-spot verification with regard to the companies' accounts prolonged the analysis and it was not possible to make a determination regarding the MET claims received within three months from the initiation.
Končno, zaradi zahtevnosti številnih vprašanj, na primer zgradbe družbe in njenih prodajnih poti, pa tudi resnih problemom glede računov družbe, ki so bili ugotovljeni med preverjanjem na mestu, se je analiza podaljšala, zato odločitve v zvezi s prejetimi zahtevki MET ni bilo mogoče izvesti v roku treh mesecev od začetka postopka.
In this respect, it is noted that the non-respect of such deadline does not entail any apparent legal consequences as companies have equally been granted the opportunity to comment.
V tej zvezi se opozarja, da nespoštovanje takšnega roka ne pomeni nobenih jasnih pravnih posledic, saj je bila vsem družbam odobrena enaka možnost za predložitev pripomb.
Furthermore, it is noted that the above mentioned company did not claim any negative impact due to the longer period needed for the MET determination.
Nadalje se opozarja, da zgoraj omenjena družba ni trdila, da je utrpela kakršen koli negativen učinek zaradi daljšega obdobja, ki je bilo potrebno za odločitev MET.
Indeed, none of the other interested parties claimed that it had suffered such prejudice.
Niti nobena druga zainteresirana stranka ni trdila, da je utrpela takšno škodo.
Given the above, it is concluded that a valid determination with regard to MET can be made even after the three months period and the claim of the company concerned was therefore rejected.
Z upoštevanjem navedenega se sklepa, da je mogoče veljavno odločitev v zvezi z MET izvesti tudi po poteku obdobja treh mesecev in zato je bil zahtevek zadevne družbe zavrnjen.
The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties directly concerned were informed accordingly.
Opravljeno je bilo posvetovanje s svetovalnim odborom in neposredno zadevne stranke so bile ustrezno obveščene.
The Community industry was given the opportunity to comment, but no comments were received concerning the MET determination.
Industriji Skupnosti je bila dana možnost, da predloži pripombe, a nobene pripombe niso bile prejete v zvezi z odločitvami MET.
Individual Treatment (IT)
Individualna obravnava (IT)
Further to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation, a country-wide 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, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, that (a) they are free to repatriate capital and profits; (b) their export prices and quantities, as well as the conditions and terms of the sales are freely determined; (c) the majority of shares belong to private persons; (d) exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates, and (e) any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.
Poleg člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se določi, če se dajatev na ravni države za države, ki spadajo v okviru člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe, razen v primerih, kjer družbe v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe dokažejo, da (a) lahko svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobiček; (b) lahko svobodno določajo svoje izvozne cene in obseg, pa tudi pogoje prodaje; (c) večina delnic pripada posameznikom; (d) se pretvorbe menjalnih tečajev izvajajo po tržnih obrestnih merah in (e) kakršno koli poseganje države ni takšno, da bi dovoljevalo izogibanje ukrepom, če so izvoznikom odobrene drugačne stopnje dajatev.
The five exporting producers, as well as requesting MET, also claimed individual treatment in the event of not being granted MET.
Pet proizvajalcev-izvoznikov je, poleg tega, da so zahtevali MET, zahtevalo tudi individualno obravnavo, v primeru, da jim MET ne bi bil odobren.
As specified above, the companies have to demonstrate that they are complying with the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, morajo družbe dokazati, da so skladne z merili, določenimi v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
As described in recital (57), one company provided misleading information concerning the business scope of one of its shareholders in order to hide possible State interference.
Kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi (56), je ena družba posredovala zavajajoče informacije v zvezi z obsegom poslov enega od svojih delničarjev, zato da bi skrila možno poseganje države.
Therefore, the company could not demonstrate that it was completely free to determine export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale.
Zato ta družba ni mogla dokazati, da je popolnoma svobodna v določanju izvoznih cen in obsega ter pogojev prodaje.
In addition, it was not able to demonstrate whether the State interference was not such as to permit circumvention of measures if this exporter were to be granted an individual duty rate.
Dokazati ni mogla niti tega, da poseganje države ni bilo takšno, da bi dovoljevalo izogibanje ukrepom, če je temu izvozniku bila odobrena posamezna stopnja dajatve.
As this company did not meet all the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, it was decided not to grant IT to this company.
Ker ta družba ni izpolnjevala vseh meril, določenih v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe, je bilo sklenjeno, da se IT tej družbi ne odobri.
One of the other three companies which was not granted MET, was partly foreign owned and was free to repatriate its profits.
Ena od treh družb, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, je bila delno v tuji lasti in je zato lahko svobodno vrnila svoj dobiček.
The other two companies are owned by Chinese individuals located in the PRC and therefore do not fall under this criterion.
Lastniki drugih dveh družb so posamezniki s Kitajske s sedežem v LRK, zato družbi tega merila ne izpolnjujeta.
On the basis of the verified information provided by the three companies, it was found that the State had no influence on the ability of the firms to freely set their export prices and quantities and conditions and terms of sale.
Na podlagi preverjenih informacij, ki so jih zagotovile te tri družbe, je bilo ugotovljeno, da država ni imela nikakršnega vpliva na zmožnost podjetij, da svobodno določajo svoje izvozne cene in obseg ter pogoje prodaje.