natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Support to the European Research Area (SERA) Unit, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
Enota ‚Podpora evropskemu raziskovalnemu prostoru (SERA)‘, Generalni direktorat Evropske komisije Skupno raziskovalno središče
repealing Decision 2005/704/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China
o razveljavitvi Odločbe 2005/704/ES o sprejetju zaveze, ponujene v zvezi s protidampinškim postopkom glede uvoza določenih vrst magnezitne opeke s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“) in zlasti členov 8 in 9 Uredbe,
In October 2005, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 [2], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’).
Svet je oktobra 2005 z Uredbo (ES) št. 1659/2005 [2] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz določenih vrst magnezitne opeke s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („zadevni izdelek“).
The Commission, by Decision 2005/704/EC [3], accepted a price undertaking offered by Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd, (‘the Company’).
Komisija je z Odločbo 2005/704/ES [3] sprejela cenovno zavezo, ki jo je ponudila družba Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd, („družba“).
The undertaking
Zaveza
Obligations of the company with regard to the undertaking
Obveznosti družbe glede zaveze
In the framework of the undertaking, the Company agreed, inter alia, not to sell the product concerned to the European Community below certain minimum prices (MIPs) laid down in the undertaking.
Družba se je s podpisom zaveze med drugim strinjala, da zadevnega izdelka v Evropsko skupnost ne bo prodajala pod določenimi najnižjimi uvoznimi cenami („NUC“) iz zaveze.
The terms of the undertaking also oblige the Company to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information in the form of a quarterly report of its sales of the product concerned to the European Community.
Zaveza družbo obvezuje, da Komisiji v obliki četrtletnega poročila predloži redne in podrobne informacije o svoji prodaji zadevnega izdelka v Evropsko skupnost.
For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the Company also undertook to allow on-the-spot verification visits at its premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.
Za zagotovitev skladnosti z zavezo se je družba tudi zavezala, da bo dovolila preveritvene obiske na kraju samem v svojih prostorih za preverjanje točnosti in verodostojnosti predloženih podatkov v navedenih četrtletnih poročilih in da bo predložila vse za Komisijo pomembne informacije.
Other provisions of the undertaking
Druge določbe zaveze
In addition, and as stipulated in the undertaking, the acceptance of the undertaking by the European Commission is based on trust and any action which would harm the relationship of trust established with the European Commission shall justify the immediate withdrawal of the undertaking.
Kakor je določeno v zavezi, sprejetje zaveze s strani Evropske komisije temelji tudi na zaupanju, vsako dejanje, ki bi to zaupanje Evropske komisije zlorabilo, pa bo imelo za posledico takojšen umik zaveze.
Furthermore, and as stipulated in the undertaking, any changes in circumstances occurring during the period of implementation of the undertaking from those circumstances prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking which were relevant to the decision to accept the undertaking may give rise to the withdrawal of the undertaking by the European Commission.
Kakor je določeno v zavezi, lahko vse spremembe med okoliščinami, nastalimi med izvajanjem zaveze, in okoliščinami ob sprejetju zaveze, ki so bile bistvene za odločitev o sprejetju zaveze, povzročijo, da Evropska komisija umakne zavezo.
Verification visit to the Company
Preveritveni obisk v prostorih družbe
In this regard, a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the Company in the People's Republic of China.
V zvezi s tem je bil opravljen preveritveni obisk v prostorih družbe v Ljudski republiki Kitajski.
Two days before the verification visit, the Company submitted revised versions of the undertaking reports for the second and third quarter of 2006.
Dva dni pred preveritvenim obiskom je družba predložila popravljene različice poročil o zavezi za drugo in tretje četrtletje 2006.
The revisions submitted concerned — inter alia — a prolongation of the terms of payment for five transactions.
Predloženi popravki se med drugim nanašajo na podaljšanje roka plačila za pet transakcij.
These adjustments for the time allowed for payment have led to prices below the MIP.
Zaradi te časovne prilagoditve plačila so se cene znižale pod NUC.
Furthermore, the verification visit established a change in the pattern of trade to the European Community after imposition of anti-dumping measures.
S preveritvenim obiskom je bila ugotovljena tudi sprememba vzorca trgovanja v Evropski skupnosti po uvedbi protidampinških ukrepov.
During the investigation period of the investigation that led to the imposition of the existing measures, the Company sold to the Community exclusively the product concerned.
V obdobju preiskave, ki je privedla do uvedbe obstoječih ukrepov, je družba v Skupnost prodajala izključno zadevni izdelek.
After imposition of measures the Company started to sell also other products to its clients in the Community.
Po uvedbi ukrepov pa je začela svojim strankam v Skupnosti prodajati tudi druge izdelke.
Such a change in the pattern of trade affects the undertaking insofar as it constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, i.e. the product not covered by the undertaking may be sold at artificially low prices in order to compensate the MIP for the product covered by the undertaking.
Takšna sprememba vzorca trgovanja vpliva na zavezo, saj predstavlja resno tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije, to pomeni, da se lahko izdelek, ki ga zaveza ne zajema, prodaja po umetno nizkih cenah, da bi izravnal NUC za izdelek iz zaveze.
In order to further assess whether such compensation actually took place, the Company was requested to provide copies of invoices of the product not covered by the undertaking, issued to other clients inside and outside the European Community.
Da bi lahko natančneje preverili to domnevno kompenzacijo, je bila družba pozvana, da predloži izvode računov izdelka, ki ga zaveza ne zajema, izdanega za druge stranke v Evropski skupnosti in izven nje.
The Company argued that an analysis of prices of other products is not meaningful to identify cross-compensation since the qualities and associated prices of these products may vary from client to client.
Družba je trdila, da analiza cen drugih izdelkov za opredelitev navzkrižne kompenzacije ni smiselna, saj se lahko količine in zadevne cene teh izdelkov od stranke do stranke razlikujejo.
In order to address those concerns, the Company was asked to provide a price list broken down by different qualities and clients but refused to do so and alleged that it concerned confidential information for products not covered by measures.
Za rešitev teh vprašanj je bila družba zaprošena, da predloži cenik, razčlenjen po različnih kakovostih in strankah, vendar pa je družba to zavrnila, češ da gre za zaupne informacije o izdelkih, ki jih ukrepi ne zadevajo.
Finally, the Company provided copies of five invoices for products not covered by the undertaking, issued in 2005 and 2006.
Nazadnje je družba predložila izvode petih računov za izdelke, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, izdane v letih 2005 in 2006.
Taking into account the various qualities purchased by these five customers, it was found that the price charged to the customer in the Community, who bought also the product covered by the undertaking, was significantly lower than the price charged for similar qualities to the other client in the Community who did not buy the product covered by the undertaking.
Ob upoštevanju različnih kakovosti izdelkov, ki jih je kupilo teh pet strank, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila cena, zaračunana stranki v Skupnosti, ki je kupovala tudi v zavezo zajet izdelek, znatno nižja od cene, zaračunane za podobno kakovost drugim strankam v Skupnosti, ki niso kupovale izdelka, zajetega v zavezo.
A similar price difference applied to the other clients outside the Community.
Podobne razlike v ceni so bile ugotovljene tudi za druge stranke zunaj Skupnosti.
This pricing policy is therefore considered as a clear indication that cross-compensation actually took place.
Ta politika določanja cen zato jasno kaže, da je do navzkrižne kompenzacije dejansko prišlo.
Reasons to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking
Razlogi za umik sprejetja zaveze
The obligation of the Company to respect the MIP for all sales of the product covered by the undertaking was not met, as described in recital 9 above.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 9, obveznost družbe, da spoštuje NUC za celotno prodajo izdelka, zajetega v zavezo, ni bila izpolnjena.
Furthermore, a change in the pattern of trade since the imposition of measures has led to a significant risk of cross-compensation which no longer allows the Commission to effectively monitor the undertaking and therefore renders the undertaking impractical.
Poleg tega je sprememba vzorca trgovanja po uvedbi ukrepov povzročila znatno tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije, zaradi česar Komisija ne more več učinkovito spremljati zaveze in je zato nesmiselna.
It appears that this change in the pattern of trade allowed the Company to compensate customers in the Community for sales subject to the MIP by artificially low prices for the product not covered by the undertaking.
Očitno je ta sprememba vzorca trgovanja družbi omogočila, da strankam v Skupnosti ponudi nadomestilo za prodajo po NUC, in sicer z umetno določenimi nizkimi cenami za izdelek, ki ga zaveza ne zajema.
This change in the pattern of trade is considered as a relevant change in circumstances compared to those prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking and should lead, taking into account the findings set out above in recitals 10 to 12, to the withdrawal of the undertaking.
Ta sprememba vzorca trgovanja se šteje za bistveno spremembo okoliščine glede na okoliščine ob sprejetju zaveze, in zato je treba ob upoštevanju ugotovitev iz uvodnih izjav 10 do 12 zavezo umakniti.
In addition, by withholding the price lists for products not covered by the undertaking, the Company failed to comply with the obligation to provide relevant information in accordance with Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation and the provisions of the undertaking.
Ker je družba zavrnila predložitev cenikov za izdelke, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, je kršila obveznost zagotovitve pomembnih informacij v skladu s členom 8(7) osnovne uredbe in določbe zaveze.
Furthermore, the unwillingness of the Company to provide these price lists harmed the relationship of trust which formed the basis for the acceptance of the undertaking.
Zaradi nepripravljenosti predložitve teh cenikov je družba izgubila zaupanje Komisije, na katerem je temeljilo sprejetje zaveze.
Written submissions
Pisna stališča
With regard to the price violation, the Company admitted that a price violation occurred.
Družba je priznala kršitev cenovne zaveze.
The Company argued, however, that the sales prices of all other transactions were strictly in compliance with the MIP.
Vendar pa je trdila, da so bile prodajne cene vseh drugih transakcij popolnoma v skladu z NUC.
Moreover, it was submitted that the final price was not significantly lower than the MIP.
Trdili so še, da končna cena ni bila znatno nižja od NUC.
The Company claimed that, on this basis, the withdrawal of the undertaking would be disproportionate to the breaches that occurred.
Po njihovem mnenju je zato umik zaveze nesorazmeren s kršitvijo.
In response to these arguments, regarding the issue of proportionality, it should be pointed out that in accordance with the undertaking, the Company undertook to ensure that the Net Sales Price of all sales covered by the undertaking shall be at or above the MIPs set out in the undertaking.
V zvezi s sorazmernostjo je treba poudariti, da se je družba z zavezo obvezala, da bo neto prodajna cena celotne prodaje, ki jo zaveza zajema, enaka kot v zavezi določena najnižja uvozna cena ali višja od nje.
Moreover, the basic Regulation contains no direct or indirect requirement that a breach of an undertaking must relate to a minimum percentage of sales or must relate to a minimum percentage of the MIP.
Osnovna uredba prav tako neposredno ali posredno ne zahteva, da mora biti kršitev zaveze povezana z najnižjim odstotkom prodaje ali najnižjim odstotkom NUC.
This approach has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance which has ruled that any breach of an undertaking is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of acceptance of an undertaking [4].
Ta pristop je potrdila tudi sodna praksa Sodišča prve stopnje, ki je odločilo, da vsakršna kršitev katerih koli zavez upravičuje umik sprejetja zaveze [4].
Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company with regard to proportionality do not alter the Commission's view that a breach of the undertaking occurred and that the withdrawal of the undertaking would be proportionate to that breach.
Zato utemeljitve, ki jih je predložila družba v zvezi s sorazmernostjo, ne spremenijo stališča Komisije, da je bila zaveza kršena in da je umik zaveze primeren odziv na kršitev.
Change in the pattern of trade
Sprememba vzorca trgovanja
With regard to the change in the pattern of trade, the Company submitted that it did not deliberately change its pattern of trade in order to compensate customers in the Community for sales subject to the MIP by artificially low prices for the product not covered by the undertaking.
Družba je v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja trdila, da ga ni spremenila z namenom, da bi strankam v Skupnosti kot nadomestilo za NUC ponudila umetno določene nizke cene za izdelek, ki ga zaveza ne zajema.
It was argued that the price increase caused by the imposition of anti-dumping measures and the consequential decline in sales to the EU of the product concerned has led the Company to develop new products outside the scope of measures in order to maintain trade with the Community.
Trdilo se je, da je družba zaradi povišanja cene, ki ga je povzročila uvedba protidampinških ukrepov, in posledičnega zmanjšanja prodaje zadevnega izdelka v EU razvila nove izdelke, ki jih ukrepi ne zajemajo, da bi lahko ohranila trgovino v Skupnosti.
In response to these arguments, it should be underlined that the change in the pattern of trade as such constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, regardless for what reason it occurred.
V odgovor na te utemeljitve je treba poudariti, da pomeni sprememba vzorca trgovanja kot takega resno tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije ne glede na razlog zanjo.
It is standing practice of the Commission not to accept price undertakings if the risk of cross-compensation is high.
Ustaljena praksa Komisije je, da ne sprejme cenovnih zavez, če je tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije veliko.
Consequently, if such a change in the pattern of trade occurs during the period of application of an undertaking, the change in itself is sufficient enough for the Commission to withdraw the undertaking, because it renders a proper monitoring of the undertaking impractical, regardless of whether or not a cross-compensation actually took place.
Če pa pride do take spremembe vzorca trgovanja v času uporabe zaveze, je sprememba sama po sebi za Komisijo zadosten razlog, da umakne zavezo, saj je učinkovito spremljanje zaveze nemogoče, ne glede na to, ali je do navzkrižne kompenzacije prišlo ali ne.
Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company in this respect do not alter the Commission's view that the change in the pattern of trade had led to a significant risk of cross-compensation.
Zato utemeljitve družbe v zvezi s tem ne spremenijo stališča Komisije, da je sprememba vzorca trgovanja povzročila znatno tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije.
Compensation scheme
Shema navzkrižne kompenzacije
The Company further submitted that it is a reasonable strategy and common business practice to offer favourable prices when trying to penetrate a market with a new product and that therefore it cannot be concluded that compensation actually took place, in particular since the volume of sales of the new product were nowhere near enough to fully compensate the loss in sales of the product covered by the undertaking.
Družba je trudi trdila, da je smiselna strategija in običajna poslovna praksa ponuditi ugodne cene pri prodiranju na trg z novim izdelkom in da zato ni mogoče skleniti, da je do kompenzacije prišlo, zlasti ker obseg prodaje novega izdelka niti najmanj ni zadoščal za popolno nadomestilo izgube prodaje izdelka, ki ga zaveza zajema.
In response to this submission, it has to be stressed that a favourable price was only offered to a client buying both the product covered by the undertaking and other products.
Treba je poudariti, da je bila ugodna cene ponujena le stranki, ki je kupovala tako izdelek, ki ga zaveza zajema, kot druge izdelke.
It was not offered to another client in the EU which does not buy the product covered by the undertaking.
Drugi stranki v EU, ki izdelka, ki ga zaveza zajema, ni kupovala, pa ta ugodna cena ni bila ponujena.
Therefore, the very high price charged to the other client in the EU for a similar quality undermines this argumentation and strengthens the argument that cross-compensation actually took place.
Zato zelo visoka cena, zaračunana drugi stranki v EU za podobno kakovost, izpodbija to utemeljitev in podkrepljuje utemeljitev o pojavu navzkrižne kompenzacije.
Furthermore, as concerns the issue of materiality and proportionality, it should be stressed that there is no requirement on the Commission to demonstrate that a drop in sales of the product concerned has been offset by an equivalent rise in sales of new products when assessing whether cross-compensation has taken place.
V zvezi z vprašanjem pomembnosti in sorazmernosti kršitve je treba poudariti, da Komisiji pri ugotavljanju, ali je prišlo do navzkrižne kompenzacije ali ne, ni treba dokazovati, da je bil padec prodaje zadevnega izdelka nadomestilo za ustrezno povečanje prodaje novih izdelkov.
Additionally, the Company contested having denied providing a price list for products not covered by the undertaking but argued that it does not have a universal price list since different prices apply to different customers in different regions.
Družba je prav tako zanikala, da je zavrnila predložitev cenika za izdelke, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, in trdila, da nima splošnega cenika, ker se za različne stranke v različnih regijah uporabljajo različne cene.
In reply to this submission, it has to be recalled that the Company has been asked to provide those price lists that are available in order to overcome that problem, but was unwilling to do so since it was alleged that it concerned confidential information for products not covered by measures.
V odgovor na te trditve je treba spomniti, da je bila družba pozvana, da predloži razpoložljive cenike, da bi se izognila temu problemu, česar pa ni želela storiti, saj naj bi šlo za zaupne informacije o izdelkih, ki jih zaveza ne zajema.
Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company in this respect do not alter the Commission's view that the Company failed to comply with the obligation to permit verification of pertinent data in accordance with Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation.
Zato utemeljitve družbe v zvezi s tem ne spremenijo stališča Komisije, da je družba kršila obvezo iz člena 8(7) osnovne uredbe, ker ni dovolila preveritev koristnih informacij.
REPEAL OF DECISION 2005/704/EC
RAZVELJAVITEV ODLOČBE 2005/704/ES
In view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn and Decision 2005/704/EC should be repealed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba umakniti sprejetje zaveze in razveljaviti Odločbo 2005/704/ES.
Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 on imports of the product concerned from the Company should apply,
Zato velja za uvoz zadevnega izdelka družbe dokončna protidampinška dajatev, uvedena s členom 1(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1659/2005 –
Decision 2005/704/EC is hereby repealed.
Odločba 2005/704/ES se razveljavi.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17.)
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2117/2005 (UL L 340, 23.12.2005, str. 17).
OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1.
UL L 267, 12.10.2005, str. 1.
OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 27.
UL L 267, 12.10.2005, str. 27.
In this context, see case T-51/96 Miwon v Council (ECR 2000, p. II-1841) paragraph 52; case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen AS v Council (ECR 2002, p. II-2905) paragraph 80.
V zvezi s tem glej zadevo T-51/96 Miwon Co. Ltd. proti Svetu [PSES 2000, str. II-1841] odstavek 52.
One invoice was issued to a customer buying at the same time the product covered by the undertaking, another invoice concerned a customer inside the Community that did not buy the product concerned from the Company.
En račun je bil izdan stranki, ki je hkrati kupovala izdelek, zajet v zavezo, drugi pa stranki v Skupnosti, ki zadevnega izdelka ni kupovala od družbe.
The remaining invoices were issued to customers outside the Community.
Ostali računi so bili izdani strankam zunaj Skupnosti.
authorising the Italian Republic to apply measures derogating from Articles 26(1)(a) and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax
o dovoljenju Italijanski republiki, da uporabi ukrepe, ki odstopajo od člena 26(1)(a) in člena 168 Direktive 2006/112/ES o skupnem sistemu davka na dodano vrednost
In a letter dated 9 October 2006 and registered by the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 11 October 2006, Italy sought authorisation to introduce measures derogating from the provisions of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment [2], which govern a taxable person's right to deduct VAT paid on purchases and those which require tax to be accounted for on business assets used for private purposes.
Italija je s pismom z dne 9. oktobra 2006, ki ga je generalni sekretariat Komisije registriral 11. oktobra 2006, zaprosila za dovoljenje, da uvede ukrepe, ki odstopajo od tistih določb Direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero [2], ki urejajo pravico davčnih zavezancev do odbitka DDV na nakupe, in od tistih določb, ki zahtevajo obračunavanje davka na poslovna sredstva, ki se uporabljajo za zasebne namene.
Directive 77/388/EEC has been replaced with Directive 2006/112/EC.
Direktiva 77/388/EGS je bila nadomeščena z Direktivo 2006/112/ES.
In accordance with Article 395(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, the Commission transmitted, by a letter dated 28 February 2007, to the other Member States the request made by Italy.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 395(2) Direktive 2006/112/ES s pismom z dne 28. februarja 2007 o zahtevku Italije obvestila druge države članice.
By a letter dated 21 November 2006, the Commission notified Italy that it had all the information that it considered necessary for appraisal of the request.
Komisija je s pismom z dne 21. novembra 2006 uradno obvestila Italijo, da je prejela vse informacije, za katere meni, da so potrebne za presojo zahtevka.