natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The applicant as well as two of the related sales companies submitted full questionnaire replies.
Vložnik in dve povezani prodajni družbi so poslali v celoti izpolnjen vprašalnik.
The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping.
Komisija je tudi poiskala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bili po njenem mnenju potrebni za določitev dampinga.
The exporting producers:
proizvajalca izvoznika:
The related sales companies:
povezanih prodajnih družb:
The product under review is the same as in the investigations mentioned in recital (1), i.e. solid fertilizers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Russia (the product concerned), currently classifiable within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059091.
Izdelek v pregledu je enak izdelku v preiskavah, omenjenih v uvodni izjavi 1, tj. trdna gnojila z deležem amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, s poreklom iz Rusije („zadevni izdelek“), trenutno uvrščena pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059091.
As established in the previous investigations and confirmed in this investigation, the product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the applicant on the Russian domestic market were found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v prejšnjih preiskavah in potrjeno v tej preiskavi, imajo zadevni izdelek in izdelki, ki jih proizvaja in prodaja vložnik na ruskem domačem trgu, enake osnovne fizikalne in kemične lastnosti in v glavnem enake načine uporabe, zaradi česar se ti izdelki štejejo za podobne izdelke v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
Since the present review was limited to the determination of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned, no conclusions were reached with regard to the product produced and sold by the Community industry in the Community market.
Ker je bil ta pregled omejen na določitev dampinga glede vložnika, v zvezi z izdelkom, ki ga industrija Skupnosti proizvaja in prodaja na trgu Skupnosti, niso bile sprejete sklepne ugotovitve.
In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the circumstances on the basis of which the current dumping margin was based have changed and whether such change was of a lasting nature.
V skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe je bilo proučeno, ali so se okoliščine, na osnovi katerih je bila uvedena trenutna stopnja dampinga, spremenile, in ali je ta sprememba trajna.
In order to establish the normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales of the applicant were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
Za določitev normalne vrednosti je bilo najprej preverjeno, ali je bila vsa domača prodaja vložnika reprezentativna v skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe.
Domestic sales of the applicant were found to be representative when compared to its export sales as they represented more than 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je domača prodaja vložnika reprezentativna v primerjavi z izvozom vložnika, saj je ta predstavljal več kot 5 % celotnega obsega izvoza v Skupnost.
The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je pozneje proučila, ali bi za domačo prodajo lahko veljalo, da je bila dosežena med običajnim potekom trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
To this end, the cost of production of the product produced and sold by the applicant on the domestic market was examined.
V ta namen so bili proučeni stroški proizvodnje izdelka, ki ga vložnik proizvede in proda na domačem trgu.
Gas is a main raw material component in the manufacturing process of the product concerned and represents a significant proportion of the total cost of production.
V proizvodnem procesu zadevnega izdelka je plin glavna surovina in predstavlja znaten del vseh stroškov proizvodnje.
In accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration were reasonably reflected in the records of the parties concerned.
Zato se je v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe proučilo, ali so bili stroški proizvodnje in prodaje obravnavanega izdelka v računovodskih evidencah zadevnih strank ustrezno prikazani.
It was established on the basis of data published by internationally recognised sources specialised in energy markets, that the prices paid by the applicant were abnormally low.
Na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih objavili mednarodno priznani viri, specializirani na energetskem trgu, je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile cene, ki jih je plačal vložnik, neobičajno nizke.
By way of illustration, they amounted to one fifth of the export price of natural gas from Russia and were also significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Community producers.
Za primerjavo, znašale so eno petino izvozne cene zemeljskega plina iz Rusije in so bile znatno nižje od cene plina, ki so jo plačevali proizvajalci Skupnosti.
In this regard, all available data indicate that domestic gas prices in Russia were regulated prices which are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas.
V zvezi s tem vsi razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da so bile domače cene plina v Rusiji nadzorovane in so precej nižje od tržnih cen, ki veljajo na nenadzorovanih trgih zemeljskega plina.
Since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the applicant’s records, they had to be adjusted accordingly.
Ker stroški za plin niso bili ustrezno prikazani v računovodskih evidencah vložnika, jih je bilo treba ustrezno prilagoditi.
The adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), net of transport costs and adjusted to reflect local distribution costs.
Prilagojena cena je temeljila na povprečni ceni ruskega plina pri prodaji za izvoz na nemško/češki meji („Waidhaus“) in neto stroških prevoza ter prilagojena tako, da je odražala lokalne stroške distribucije.
Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that any adjustment of its gas price paid on the domestic market would be unwarranted because the accounting records of the company fully reflected the costs associated with the activity of production and sales of the like product in the country of origin.
Po razkritju je vložnik navedel, da bi bila kakršna koli prilagoditev njegove cene plina na domačem trgu neupravičena, saj naj bi računovodske evidence družbe v celoti prikazovale stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka v državi porekla.
However, when examining cost of production of the like product under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it must be determined whether the costs as booked in the company’s accounts are reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation.
Vendar pa je treba pri preverjanju stroškov proizvodnje podobnega izdelka iz člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe ugotoviti, ali stroški, kot so knjiženi v računovodskih evidencah družbe, ustrezno prikazujejo stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo in prodajo izdelka v preiskavi.
For the reasons set out above in recital (18), this was found not to be the case.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 18, je bilo ugotovljeno, da to ne drži.
The applicant did not address the apparent significant difference between the price for gas paid on the Russian domestic market and the export price of natural gas from Russia, on the one hand, and the one paid by the Community producers, on the other hand.
Vložnik ni obravnaval očitne velike razlike med ceno plina na ruskem domačem trgu in izvozno ceno zemeljskega plina iz Rusije na eni strani in ceno, ki jo plačajo proizvajalci Skupnosti, na drugi strani.
It did also not address the fact that domestic prices for natural gas were regulated in Russia and could not be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Ravno tako ni upošteval dejstva, da so bile domače cene zemeljskega plina v Rusiji nadzorovane in se zanje ni moglo šteti, da ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih.
Finally, the applicant did not explain why despite the reasons set out in recital (18), the cost of gas used for the production of the like product sold on the domestic market would be reasonably reflected in its records.
Nenazadnje, vložnik ni pojasnil, zakaj bi bili kljub razlogom iz uvodne izjave 18 stroški plina, uporabljenega v proizvodnji podobnega izdelka, prodajanega na domačem trgu, ustrezno prikazani v računovodskih evidencah.
This claim therefore had to be rejected.
To trditev je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The applicant further claimed that by making a gas adjustment, de facto a methodology to determine normal value was used which is not foreseen by the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je nadalje zatrjeval, da je bila s prilagoditvijo plina de facto uporabljena metodologija za določitev normalne vrednosti, ki ni predvidena z osnovno uredbo.
Thus, by replacing domestic gas costs by costs calculated as described above in recital (19), and due to the fact that these costs constitute major part of the total costs of the like product and therefore also of the constructed normal value, the normal value would be de facto determined by data from a third ‘representative’ market.
Z nadomestitvijo domačih stroškov za plin s stroški, izračunanimi v uvodni izjavi 19, in zaradi dejstva, da ti stroški predstavljajo velik del vseh stroškov podobnega izdelka in s tem tudi konstruirane normalne vrednosti, bi bila torej normalna vrednost de facto določena s podatki s tretjega „reprezentativnega“ trga.
In this regard, the applicant argued that for market economy countries, the basic Regulation foresees, however, only the following methodologies to determine the normal value:
V zvezi s tem je vložnik navedel, da osnovna uredba za države s tržnim gospodarstvom predvideva le naslednje metodologije za določitev normalne vrednosti:
on the basis of the domestic price of the like product in the ordinary cause of trade, or alternatively, in case sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade;
na podlagi domače cene za podoben izdelek v običajnem poteku trgovine ali, kot drugo možnost v primeru, da prodaja ne poteka v običajnem poteku trgovine;
on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin (plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and for profits) or
na podlagi stroškov proizvodnje v državi porekla (prišteti razumni znesek za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške („PSA“) ter za dobičke) ali
representative export prices of the like product to an appropriate third country.
na podlagi reprezentativnih izvoznih cen podobnega izdelka za ustrezno tretjo državo.
The applicant concluded that on this basis normal value should not be based on data from a third representative market.
Vložnik je sklenil, da zaradi tega normalna vrednost ne bi smela temeljiti na podatkih s tretjega reprezentativnega trga.
In this regard and as also outlined below in recitals (45) to (48), it should first be noted that normal value was established in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem in kot je tudi navedeno v spodnjih uvodnih izjavah 45 do 48, je najprej treba opozoriti na to, da je bila normalna vrednost določena v skladu z metodologijami, navedenimi v členu 2(1) do (6) osnovne uredbe.
However, in order to establish whether domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, i.e. whether they were profitable, it must first be established whether the costs of the applicant were a reliable basis within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Da bi ugotovili, ali je domača prodaja potekala v običajnem poteku trgovine zaradi cene, tj. ali je bila dobičkonosna, je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali so bili stroški vložnika zanesljiva osnova v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
Only after costs have been reliably established, it can be determined which methodology to establish normal value should be used.
Šele ko so stroški zanesljivo ugotovljeni, je mogoče določiti, katera metodologija se bo uporabila za določitev normalne vrednosti.
It is therefore wrong to claim that by determining reliable costs in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation a new methodology to determine normal value was introduced.
Zato je napačna trditev, da je bila z določitvijo zanesljivih stroškov v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe uvedena nova metodologija za določitev normalne vrednosti.
The applicant moreover argued that when adjusting cost in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the level of the adjusted costs cannot exceed the level of the respective costs in the exporting country.
Vložnik je nadalje navedel, da pri prilagoditvi stroškov v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe raven prilagojenih stroškov ne more presegati ravni ustreznih stroškov v državi izvoznici.
Otherwise, the methodology used when adjusting cost would be in breach of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation which stipulates that normal value of the like product shall be calculated on the basis of the costs of production in the country of origin.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bila uporabljena metodologija pri prilagoditvi stroškov v nasprotju s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe, ki določa, da se normalna vrednost podobnega izdelka izračuna na podlagi stroškov proizvodnje v državi porekla.
The cost adjustment was done in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Stroški so bili prilagojeni v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not refer to the ‘cost of production in the country of origin’, but explicitly entitles the Institutions to use the cost of production coming ‘from other representative market’ in other countries than the country of origin.
Člen 2(5) osnovne uredbe ne omenja „stroškov proizvodnje v državi porekla“, temveč daje institucijam izrecno pravico do uporabe stroškov proizvodnje „z drugega reprezentativnega trga“ v državah, ki niso država porekla.
The applicant’s argument therefore had to be rejected
Vložnikov argument je bilo treba zato zavrniti.
Finally, the findings set out above in recitals (18) and (19) are also not in contrast to Article 1 of the basic Regulation, as claimed by the applicant.
Nenazadnje, ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 18 in 19 niso v nasprotju s členom 1 osnovne uredbe, kot to navaja vložnik.
Indeed, although Article 1 of the basic Regulation indicates that normal value should be established by reference to data from the country of export, the basic Regulation makes also clear that this rule is subject to exceptions.
Čeprav člen 1 osnovne uredbe navaja, da bi bilo treba normalno vrednost določiti s sklicevanjem na podatke iz države izvoza, osnovna uredba tudi jasno navaja, da so pri tem pravilu možne izjeme.
The applicant’s arguments in this respect had therefore to be rejected.
Trditev vložnika v zvezi s tem je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The applicant further claimed that if an adjustment were to be made to its cost of natural gas on the domestic market, such adjustment should be based on either the
Vložnik je nadalje navedel, da mora prilagoditev, če se ta izvede za njegove stroške zemeljskega plina na domačem trgu, temeljiti na
non-regulated gas prices available in Russia, or
nenadzorovanih cenah plina v Rusiji ali
the average export price of Russian natural gas to the Baltic countries, or alternatively
na povprečni izvozni ceni ruskega zemeljskega plina za baltske države, ali, kot druga možnost;
on the basis of the actual cost of production of natural gas in Russia plus a reasonable profit margin.
na podlagi dejanskih stroškov proizvodnje zemeljskega plina v Rusiji s prišteto primerno stopnjo dobička.
Firstly, the fact that the Commission could have chosen a different basis does not render the choice of Waidhaus unreasonable.
Prvič, zaradi dejstva, da bi Komisija lahko izbrala drugo osnovo, izbira Waidhausa ni nerazumna izbira.
The primary criterion for the choice of the basis on which to establish the gas prices is that it reasonably reflects a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Prvo merilo za izbiro osnove, na kateri se določijo cene plina, je, da ustrezno odraža ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih.
It is undisputed that this condition is met with respect to the prices at Waidhaus.
Nesporno je, da je v zvezi s cenami pri Waidhausu ta pogoj izpolnjen.
Secondly, the fact that the volume of gas sold at non-regulated prices in the domestic market was only minor during the RIP and that such prices were significantly closer to the regulated domestic price than to the freely-determined export price strongly suggests that these non-regulated prices were distorted by the prevailing regulated prices.
Drugič, dejstvo, da je bila količina plina, prodanega po nenadzorovanih cenah na domačem trgu, majhna samo med OPP in da so bile te cene dosti bolj podobne nadzorovanim domačim cenam kot pa prosto določeni izvozni ceni, pa pomeni, da so prevladujoče nadzorovane cene izkrivljale te nenadzorovane cene.
Therefore, the unregulated domestic prices could not be used.
Zato ni bilo mogoče uporabiti nenadzorovanih domačih cen.
It was also considered that Russian export prices of gas to the Baltic States were not sufficiently representative, due to the relatively low export volumes to these countries.
Prav tako obstaja mnenje, da ruske izvozne cene plina za baltske države niso bile dovolj reprezentativne, in sicer zaradi relativno majhnih izvoznih količin v te države.
Furthermore, necessary data concerning transportation and distribution cost were not available and therefore, reliable prices to the Baltic States could not be established.
Poleg tega potrebni podatki v zvezi s stroški prevoza in distribucije niso bili na voljo, zato zanesljivih cen za baltske države ni bilo mogoče določiti.
Indeed, by far the greatest volume of gas is exported via the Waidhaus hub which represents therefore an appropriate basis for an adjustment.
Dejansko se daleč največ plina izvozi prek vozlišča v Waidhausu, ki je zato primerna osnova za prilagoditev.
The applicant did not provide any evidence regarding the existence of representative markets, other than the Waidhaus hub, where prices reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Vložnik razen vozlišča v Waidhausu, kjer cene ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih, ni predložil nobenih dokazov v zvezi z obstojem reprezentativnih trgov.
Consequently, these arguments were rejected.
Zato so bili ti argumenti zavrnjeni.
In this context, the applicant also claimed that it purchased approximately 50 % of the natural gas consumed in its production of fertilisers on the non-regulated market in Russia.
V tem kontekstu je vložnik tudi navedel, da je na nenadzorovanem trgu v Rusiji kupil približno 50 % zemeljskega plina, ki ga je porabil pri proizvodnji gnojil.
The applicant claimed it would therefore be discriminatory to adjust its gas costs while no such adjustments would be made for other exporters with higher cost levels similar to those of the applicant.
Vložnik je trdil, da bi bilo diskriminatorno prilagoditi njegove stroške za plin, medtem ko se takšne prilagoditve ne bi izvedle za druge izvoznike z višjimi ravnmi stroškov, podobnimi njegovim.
It should be noted that according to the verified questionnaire reply, the applicant’s purchases of natural gas on the un-regulated market in Russia were marginal during the RIP.
Treba je opozoriti na to, da so bili, glede na preverjeni izpolnjeni vprašalnik, vložnikovi nakupi zemeljskega plina na nenadzorovanem trgu v Rusiji med OPP mejni.
As far as the third alternative mentioned under (iii) in recital (28) above is concerned, i.e. to base the adjustment on the actual cost of production of natural gas in Russia, it should first be noted that such alternative is not, as claimed by the applicant, expressively foreseen in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tretjo možnostjo, omenjeno pod (iii) v uvodni izjavi 28, tj. določitev prilagoditve na osnovi dejanskih stroškov proizvodnje zemeljskega plina v Rusiji, je treba najprej navesti, da ta možnost ni, kot trdi vložnik, izrecno predvidena v členu 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, as mentioned in recital (29), the primary criterion for the choice of the basis on which to establish the gas prices is that it reasonably reflects a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 29 pa je prvo merilo za izbiro osnove, na kateri se določijo cene plina, da ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih.
Thus, whether the price of gas charged by the supplier to the customers is made at a profit as such is irrelevant in this context.
Zato je vprašanje, ali dobavitelju cena plina, ki jo zaračuna strankam, prinese dobiček, v tem kontekstu nepomembno.
This argument had therefore to be rejected.
Ta argument je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The applicant furthermore argued that domestic prices for natural gas in Russia regulated by the State are increasing constantly and reaching levels covering the cost of production of gas.
Vložnik je nadalje navedel, da domače cene zemeljskega plina v Rusiji, ki jih nadzoruje država, neprestano naraščajo in dosegajo ravni, ki krijejo stroške proizvodnje plina.
Therefore, the price on the domestic market cannot be considered as uncompetitive or unreasonably low.
Zato cene na domačem trgu ni mogoče obravnavati kot nekonkurenčne ali nerazumljivo nizke.
This argument has no grounds since the correct standard for choosing a representative market is not whether prices are profitable as such but whether prices reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets, as explained in recital (29) above.
Ta argument je neutemeljen, saj pravilen standard za izbiro reprezentativnega trga ni, ali so cene kot take dobičkonosne, temveč ali cene ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se normalno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 29.
This is not the case for prices regulated by the State.
To pa ne drži za cene, ki jih nadzoruje država.
Furthermore, this argument also contradicts public statements of the Russian gas supplier (as confirmed by its published audited accounts) that the Russian domestic gas prices do not cover production, transportation and sales cost.
Poleg tega ta argument nasprotuje tudi javnim izjavam ruskega dobavitelja plina (kot potrjujejo njegovi objavljeni revidirani računovodski izkazi), da ruske domače cene plina ne krijejo stroškov proizvodnje, prevoza in prodaje.
As regards the calculation method of the gas price at Waidhaus as such, the applicant claimed that the Russian export duty payable for all exports should have been deducted from the Waidhaus price, because the export duty is not incurred domestically.
V zvezi z metodo izračuna cene plina pri Waidhausu je vložnik navedel, da bi morala biti ruska izvozna dajatev, ki se plača za ves izvoz, odšteta od cene pri Waidhausu, saj se izvozna dajatev na domačem trgu ne zaračuna.
Indeed the market price at Waidhaus, which was considered as representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, is the price after export taxes and not the prices before these taxes.
Dejansko je tržna cena pri Waidhausu, ki se je štel kot reprezentativni trg v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe, cena po izvoznih dajatvah in ne cena pred temi dajatvami.
From the perspective of the buyer it is the price it has to pay at Waidhaus which is relevant, and in this regard it is irrelevant what percentage of that price constitutes an export tax and what percentage is paid to the gas supplier.
Z vidika kupca je to cena, ki jo mora plačati pri Waidhausu, pri tem pa ni pomembno, kolikšen odstotek te cene je izvozna dajatev in kolikšen odstotek cene dobi dobavitelj plina.