natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, no substantially new element or evidence was submitted which would necessitate a reassessment of such indicators and, consequently, a change in the conclusion reached at the provisional stage.
Vendar ni bil predložen nikakršen bistveno nov element ali dokaz, zaradi katerega bi bilo treba take kazalnike ponovno oceniti in posledično spremeniti končno oceno iz začasne preiskave.
This claim was reiterated after definitive disclosure, especially as regards the evolution of production, capacity utilisation, market share, stocks and employment.
Ta ugovor je bil po dokončnem razkritju ponovno vložen, zlasti v zvezi z gibanjem proizvodnje, izkoriščenostjo zmogljivosti, tržnim deležem, zalogami in zaposlovanjem.
As already explained in recitals 84 to 88 of the provisional Regulation, these indicators clearly showed a negative evolution, which contributed to deteriorate the situation of the Community industry.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno v zgoraj navedenih uvodnih izjavah 84 do 88 začasne uredbe, so ti kazalniki izkazovali negativno gibanje, ki je prispevalo k poslabšanju stanja industrije Skupnosti.
Thus, the claim was rejected.
Tako je bil ugovor zavrnjen.
Therefore, the contents of recitals 82 to 97 of the provisional Regulation concerning the situation of the Community industry and the conclusion on injury is hereby confirmed.
Zato se uvodni izjavi 82 do 97 osnovne uredbe v zvezi z razmerami industrije Skupnosti in sklep o škodi, potrdita.
In the absence of any substantially new information or argument, the contents of recital 100 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker niso bile posredovane bistveno nove informacije ali argumenti, se uvodna izjava 100 začasne uredbe potrdi.
One cooperating exporter reiterated that injury could have also been caused by imports from other third countries which increased significantly before the IP, including imports from India and Brazil, in particular.
Eden od sodelujočih izvoznikov je večkrat ugovarjal, da bi škodo lahko povzročil tudi uvoz iz drugih tretjih držav, ki se je pred OP bistveno povečal, vključno zlasti z uvozom iz Indije in Brazilije.
As regards India, it cannot be considered a relevant source of supply during the period of analysis 2000 to 2003, given the negligible quantities imported.
Indija se glede na zanemarljive količine uvoza ne more šteti kot pomemben vir nabave v obdobju analize med letoma 2000 in 2003.
As a matter of fact, the market share of Indian imports was below 1 % in the IP and practically non-existent before.
Tržni delež uvoza iz Indije je v OP dejansko znašal manj kot 1 %, prej pa ga tako rekoč ni bilo.
As far as Brazil is concerned, imports were limited both in comparison to imports from the PRC and total imports during the whole period considered.
Uvoz iz Brazilije pa je bil omejen, tako v primerjavi z uvozom iz LRK kot skupnim uvozom v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju.
Therefore, it is concluded that these imports did not break the causal link as set out in recital 103 of the provisional Regulation.
Zato se sklene, da uvoz iz teh dveh držav ni prekinil vzročne zveze, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 103 začasne uredbe.
One exporter and a number of importers and users claimed that the Community industry has enjoyed a dominant position in the Community market for barium carbonate and that this factor has allowed the industry to increase its prices in the Community.
En izvoznik in veliko uvoznikov ter uporabnikov je trdilo, da je industrija Skupnosti uživala prevladujoči položaj na trgu Skupnosti za barijev karbonat, kar naj bi ji omogočalo zviševanje cen v Skupnosti.
The exporter stressed the fact that the group, to which the sole Community producer belongs, had been investigated for abuse of dominant position in the past.
Izvoznik je poudaril dejstvo, da je bila proti skupini, kateri pripada edini proizvajalec Skupnosti, v preteklosti uvedena preiskava zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja.
First of all, it should be noted that during the period 2000 to 2003, the market share of the Community industry was, on average, around 10 percentage points higher than that of the Chinese exporting producers, whilst during the IP it was comparable to that of imports from the PRC.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je bil v obdobju med letoma 2000 in 2003 tržni delež industrije Skupnosti v povprečju 10 odstotnih točk višji od tržnega deleža kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, medtem ko je bil v OP primerljiv z deležem uvoza iz LRK.
It cannot therefore be concluded that the Community industry has enjoyed a dominant position over the period considered, given the reduction of its market share against imports from the PRC and the equal market share of imports from the PRC in the IP.
Glede na zmanjšanje njenega tržnega deleža v primerjavi z uvozom iz LRK in glede na enak tržni delež uvoza iz LRK v OP ni mogoče sklepati, da je industrija Skupnosti v obravnavanem obdobju uživala prevladujoči položaj.
In any case, no evidence has been provided by any interested party to substantiate a possible abuse of dominant position of the Community industry as regards the ‘like product’.
Poleg tega nobena zainteresirana stranka ni predložila dokazov, ki bi utemeljevali zlorabo prevladujočega položaja industrije Skupnosti v zvezi s podobnim izdelkom.
Even in cases where a company is the sole producer in a given market, this fact alone cannot be taken as an indication that such producer has abused its market position by way of artificially increasing the prices on such market.
Celo v primerih, ko je neka družba na določenem trgu edini proizvajalec, se to dejstvo ne more šteti kot pokazatelj, da je tak proizvajalec zlorabljal svoj položaj na trgu z umetnim zviševanjem cen na takem trgu.
Moreover, should the Community industry have indeed enjoyed a dominant position, let alone abused it, it would be difficult to understand how the Community industry’s prices could have dropped by 7 % as indicated in recital 86 of the provisional Regulation, while the Chinese exporters have increased their market share so substantially.
Poleg tega, če naj bi industrija Skupnosti dejansko uživala prevladujoči položaj, ali ga celo zlorabljala, je težko razumeti, kako so se cene Skupnosti lahko znižale za 7 %, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 86 začasne uredbe, medtem ko so kitajski izvozniki svoj tržni delež tako znatno povečali.
Furthermore, it cannot be inferred that the Community producer abused a possible dominant position merely on the basis of the existence of an investigation not covering the like product, or investigations in the past in respect of some company of the group to which it belongs.
Poleg tega zgolj na podlagi izvedene preiskave, ki ne zajema podobnega izdelka, ali preiskav v preteklosti v zvezi z nekaterimi družbami iz skupine, kateri proizvajalec Skupnosti pripada, ni mogoče sklepati, da je zlorabil možni prevladujoči položaj.
Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Trditev se zato zavrne.
As regards the information contained in recitals 110 and 111 of the provisional Regulation, several users and importers claimed that the imposition of definitive measures would penalise the bricks and tiles manufacturers, which prefer to use the water suspended barium carbonate (slurry) made out of the barium carbonate imported from the PRC, rather than using the barium carbonate in powder form, supplied by the Community industry.
V zvezi z informacijami, ki jih zajemata uvodni izjavi 110 in 111 začasne uredbe, je več uporabnikov in uvoznikov trdilo, da bi bili z uvedbo dokončnih ukrepov kaznovani izdelovalci opeke in ploščic, ki raje uporabljajo z vodo suspendiran barijev karbonat (tekoča zmes), izdelan iz barijevega karbonata, uvoženega iz LRK, kot pa barijev karbonat v prahu, ki ga dobavlja industrija Skupnosti.
These parties alleged that the Community industry does not sell slurry and refuses to supply barium carbonate powder to importers producing the slurry.
Te stranke so trdile, da industrija Skupnosti ne prodaja tekoče zmesi barijevega karbonata in noče dobavljati barijevega karbonata v prahu uvoznikom, ki proizvajajo njegovo tekočo zmes.
Contrary to this claim, it has been confirmed that the Community industry supplies barium carbonate to at least one importer producing slurry out of it.
V nasprotju s to trditvijo pa je bilo potrjeno, da industrija Skupnosti dobavlja barijev karbonat najmanj enemu uvozniku, ki iz njega izdeluje tekočo zmes.
Therefore, there is indeed an alternative source of supply of slurry produced out of the Community industry’s barium carbonate.
Zato v resnici obstaja alternativni vir dobave tekoče zmesi, ki se proizvaja iz barijevega karbonata industrije Skupnosti.
Furthermore, as stated in recital 43 of this Regulation, the purpose of the imposition of anti-dumping measures is by no means to stop access to the Community market for products from the PRC, but rather to restore fair competition and to maintain alternative sources of supply in the Community.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (43) te uredbe, namen uvedbe protidampinških ukrepov nikakor ni preprečiti dostop do trga Skupnosti izdelkom iz LRK, temveč ponovno vzpostaviti pošteno konkurenco in ohraniti alternativne vire dobave v Skupnosti.
In view of the above and in the absence of any supporting evidence provided by the users and importers to substantiate their preference for the slurry or for the barium carbonate imported from the PRC to the competitive product offered by the Community industry, the claim is rejected.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in na to, da uporabniki in uvozniki niso predložili nobenih dokazov, ki bi utemeljili razloge za to, da dajejo v primerjavi s konkurenčnim izdelkom, ki ga proizvaja industrija Skupnosti, prednost tekoči zmesi barijevega karbonata, uvoženega iz LRK, se trditev zavrne.
Based on the above considerations and other elements contained in recitals 98 to 111 of the provisional Regulation, it is concluded that imports from the PRC have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega in drugih elementov, ki jih zajemata uvodni izjavi 98 do 111 začasne uredbe, se sklene, da je uvoz iz LRK povzročil znatno škodo industriji Skupnosti v smislu člena 3(6) osnovne uredbe.
Two associations representing end-users, some importers and end-users themselves, reiterated their main concern that the imposition of any measures would reduce the overall competition on the Community market for this particular product and therefore inevitably lead to an increase in prices, which would reduce their level of competitiveness.
Dve združenji, ki predstavljata končne uporabnike, nekaj uvoznikov ter končnih uporabnikov samih je ponovno izrazilo glavno skrb, da bi uvedba kakršnih koli ukrepov zmanjšala splošno konkurenčnost na trgu Skupnosti za ta izdelek in povzročila neizogiben dvig cen, kar bi zmanjšalo njihovo raven konkurenčnosti.
These parties did not provide any additional evidence to substantiate their claim.
Te stranke niso predložile nobenih dodatnih dokazov, ki bi utemeljevali njihovo trditev.
In addition, 20 users which had not made themselves known to the Commission before the imposition of the provisional measures, petitioned against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties.
Poleg tega je dvajset uporabnikov, ki se Komisiji niso javili pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov, s peticijo nasprotovalo uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev.
These parties were given the opportunity to substantiate their claims, but failed to do so.
Tem strankam je bila dana možnost, da utemeljijo svoje zahtevke, vendar tega niso storile.
Nevertheless, their arguments were further examined through verification of the data already submitted before the imposition of provisional measures by one cooperating importer and two cooperating users.
Kljub temu se je njihove argumente natančneje proučilo s preverjanjem podatkov, ki so jih že pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov predložili en sodelujoči uvoznik in dva sodelujoča uporabnika.
Indeed, following the additional verification, visits to a company operating in the ceramics (frits) industry and another one operating in the bricks and tiles industry (the two companies representing together over 20 % of the imports of barium carbonate from the PRC as reported by cooperating users), it is confirmed, as mentioned in recital 127 of the provisional Regulation, that the share of barium carbonate in the total cost of production of users is, on average, below 8 %.
Po dodatnih preveritvenih obiskih v družbi, ki se ukvarja s keramično industrijo (frita), in družbi, ki se ukvarja z industrijo opeke in ploščic (po poročilu sodelujočih uporabnikov obe družbi skupaj predstavljata več kot 20 % uvoza barijevega karbonata iz LRK), je potrjeno, kot omenjeno v uvodni izjavi (127) začasne uredbe, da je delež barijevega karbonata v skupnih proizvodnih stroških uporabnikov v povprečju nižji od 8 %.
In line with the findings in recital 128 of the provisional Regulation, it was therefore concluded that, given the level of the measures, and the existence of alternative sources of supply from exporters not subject to duties, the impact of any increase in the price of the ‘like product’ for users appears to be minimal.
Zato je bilo v skladu z ugotovitvami iz uvodne izjave 128 začasne uredbe sklenjeno, da se glede na raven ukrepov in obstoj alternativnih virov dobave od izvoznikov, za katere dajatve ne bodo veljale, učinek kakršnega koli zvišanja cen podobnega izdelka za uporabnike zdi minimalen.
Further to definitive disclosure, two associations of users and one exporting producer claimed that the possible impact of the definitive measures on users would be higher than mentioned in recitals 39 and 40 of this Regulation.
Po dokončnem razkritju so dve združenji uporabnikov in en proizvajalec izvoznik trdili, da bi bil možen učinek dokončnih ukrepov na uporabnike večji, kakor je bilo ugotovljeno v uvodnih izjavah 39 in 40 te uredbe.
In this respect, it should be noted that the findings therein are based on verified data of cooperating users.
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da ugotovitve temeljijo na preverjenih podatkih sodelujočih uporabnikov.
The said claims referred to information on companies which did not cooperate in the investigation and could not be verified.
Navedene trditve se nanašajo na podatke o družbah, ki niso sodelovale v preiskavi, in jih ni bilo moč preveriti.
The claim was therefore rejected.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
The exporting producer mentioned above claimed that only a limited number of users, not representative of the whole market, had served as the basis for the findings.
Zgoraj omenjeni proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da ugotovitve temeljijo le na omejenem številu uporabnikov, ki ne predstavljajo celotnega trga.
In this respect, it should be noted that the users verified at both provisional and definitive stage represent over 90 % of the imports of barium carbonate from the PRC made by cooperating users during the IP.
Ob tem je treba omeniti, da delež preverjenih uporabnikov tako v okviru začasne kot dokončne preiskave predstavlja več kot 90 % uvoza barijevega karbonata iz LRK, ki so ga v OP ustvarili sodelujoči uporabniki.
Therefore, the validity of the findings is considered appropriate and the claim is rejected.
Zato se šteje, da so ugotovitve ustrezne in trditev se zavrne.
It is further recalled that the purpose of any anti-dumping measure is by no means to stop access to the Community market for products from the PRC, but rather to restore a level playing field that had been distorted by unfair trade practices.
Ponovno se opominja, da namen protidampinških ukrepov nikakor ni preprečiti izdelkom iz LRK dostop do trga Skupnosti, ampak prej ponovno vzpostaviti enake konkurenčne pogoje, ki so bili moteni zaradi nepoštenih trgovinskih praks.
Thus, measures would enable the continuation of activity of the sole Community producer, and would promote overall competition in the Community market.
Tako bi ukrepi omogočili nadaljevanje dejavnosti edinega proizvajalca Skupnosti in spodbudili splošno konkurenčnost na trgu Skupnosti.
In the absence of any substantially new information or argument in this particular respect, the contents of recitals 114 to 132 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker s tem v zvezi ni bilo kakršnih koli bistveno novih podatkov ali argumentov, se uvodne izjave 114 do 132 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Further to the disclosure of provisional findings, an exporter claimed that the profit level of 7,2 % deemed to represent the profit that could be achieved by the Community industry in the absence of injurious dumping from the PRC, is not realistic, since, due to the alleged dominant position of the sole Community producer, its profitability in the past was artificially high.
Po razkritju začasnih ugotovitev je neki izvoznik trdil, da stopnja dobička v višini 7,2 %, ki naj bi pomenila dobiček, ki bi ga industrija Skupnosti lahko dosegla, če ne bi bilo škodljivega dampinga iz LRK, ni realna, saj naj bi bila zaradi domnevno prevladujočega položaja edinega proizvajalca Skupnosti njegova donosnost v preteklosti umetno visoka.
As already mentioned in recital 33 of this Regulation, the fact that, during a certain period of time, there is only one Community producer, does not imply that this producer has a dominant position in the market and abuses this situation, for example, by making use of its position in order to obtain abnormally high profit margins from its activity.
Kot je bilo že omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 33 te uredbe, dejstvo, da v določenem obdobju obstaja en sam proizvajalec Skupnosti, ne pomeni, da ima ta proizvajalec prevladujoči položaj na trgu in da to zlorablja, denimo z izkoriščanjem svojega položaja za doseganje neobičajno visokih stopenj dobička iz svoje dejavnosti.
As explained in recital 135 of the provisional Regulation, the profit margin of 7,2 % was calculated as the weighted average profit margin of the ‘like product’ during the years 1996 to 1998.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 135 začasne uredbe, se je stopnja dobička v višini 7,2 % izračunala kot tehtana povprečna stopnja dobička podobnega izdelka med leti 1996 do 1998.
Account was taken of the Community industry’s profit levels when it was not suffering from injurious dumping, that is to say, before the period of analysis for the assessment of injury.
Upoštevale so se stopnje dobička industrije Skupnosti, ko ta ni trpela škode zaradi škodljivega dampinga, tj. v obdobju pred analizo za oceno škode.
As the exporter in question has not provided any evidence showing that the said profit is to be considered as abnormally high, the claim is rejected and the contents of recital 135 as regards the calculation of the injury margin is hereby confirmed.
Ker zadevni izvoznik ni predložil nobenih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi se moral zgoraj omenjeni dobiček šteti kot neobičajno visok, se ugovor zavrne in se uvodna izjava 135 glede izračuna stopnje škode, potrdi.
I. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
I. DOKONČNI UKREPI
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Community interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping duties should be imposed on imports originating in the PRC at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins, in accordance with the ‘lesser duty’ rule.
Glede na ugotovitve v zvezi z dampingom, škodo, vzročnostjo in interesom Skupnosti ter v skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe, je treba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz blaga s poreklom iz LRK uvesti na ravni nižjih stopenj dampinga in škode v skladu s pravilom nižje dajatve.
In this case, the individual duty rates, as well as the country-wide duty, should accordingly be set at the level of the dumping margins found.
V tem primeru je treba individualne stopnje dajatve, kot tudi dajatev na ravni države, določiti na ravni ugotovljenih stopenj dampinga.
On the basis of the above, the definitive duties are as follows:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega dokončne dajatve znašajo:
All others
Ostali
Regarding the form of the measures, no comments were received and therefore the imposition of the duty in the form of a specific amount per tonne, as contained in recital 138 of the provisional Regulation, is confirmed.
Glede oblike ukrepov ni bilo pripomb, zato se uvedba dajatve v obliki posebnega zneska za tono, kakor je opredeljeno v uvodni izjavi 138 začasne uredbe, potrdi.
Following the disclosure of the definitive findings, two exporting producers expressed an interest in offering a price undertaking.
Po razkritju dokončnih ugotovitev sta dva proizvajalca izvoznika izrazila interes za ponudbo cenovne zaveze.
However, for one which was not granted either MET or IT, it is the Commission’s practice not to accept undertakings in such a case, since no individual determination of dumping can be established.
Enemu izmed njiju ni bila odobrena niti TGO niti IO in Komisija v takih primerih ne sprejme zavez, saj ni mogoče individualno ugotoviti dampinga.
On this basis, the offer could not be taken into consideration.
Glede na to se ponudba ni mogla upoštevati.
The other exporting producer which received market economy treatment, withdrew its offer subsequently.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik, kateremu je bila odobrena tržno gospodarska obravnava, pa je nato svojo ponudbo umaknil.
In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers in the PRC and given the level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive duties imposed.
Glede na višino stopenj dampinga, ugotovljenih za proizvajalce izvoznike iz LRK, in glede na raven škode, povzročene industriji Skupnosti, se šteje za potrebno, da se zneski, zavarovani z začasno protidampinško dajatvijo, uvedeno z začasno uredbo, dokončno poberejo v višini uvedenih dokončnih dajatev.
As definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, amounts provisionally secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Ker so dokončne dajatve nižje od začasnih, se zneski začasne varščine, ki presegajo dokončno stopnjo protidampinških dajatev, sprostijo.
The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation.
Individualne stopnje protidampinških dajatev za družbe, navedene v tej uredbi, so bile določene na podlagi ugotovitev sedanje preiskave.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies.
Zato odražajo stanje teh družb v obdobju preiskave.
These duty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all others’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the country concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned.
Te stopnje dajatev (v nasprotju z dajatvijo na ravni države, ki velja za „vse druge družbe“) se torej uporabljajo izključno za uvoz izdelkov s poreklom iz zadevne države, ki jih proizvajajo omenjene družbe, torej omenjene specifične pravne osebe.
Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in Article 1 of this Regulation with its name and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all others’.
Uvoženi izdelki, ki jih proizvaja katera koli druga družba, ki v členu 1 te uredbe ni izrecno omenjena z nazivom in naslovom, vključno s subjekti, ki so povezani s katerim koli izrecno omenjenim subjektom, ne morejo imeti koristi od teh stopenj in zanje velja stopnja dajatve, ki velja za „vse druge družbe“.