natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under these circumstances, and taking into account that dumped imports increased significantly during the period considered and took over part of the Community industry's market shares, it was considered that it would have been unreasonable to invest in an increase of production capacity on the Community market.
V teh okoliščinah in ob upoštevanju, da se je dampinški uvoz v obravnavanim obdobju znatno povečal ter prevzel del tržnega deleža industrije Skupnosti, se je štelo, da bi bila naložba v povečanje proizvodne zmogljivosti na trgu Skupnosti nerazumna.
However, as mentioned in recital 129 of the provisional Regulation, investments were made to maintain existing production capacities.
Vendar so bile, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 129 začasne uredbe, izvedene naložbe za ohranitev obstoječih proizvodnih zmogljivosti.
Under the given circumstances, this was considered as a reasonable business decision against the background of the dumped imports.
V takih okoliščinah se je glede na dampinški uvoz štelo, da gre za razumno poslovno odločitev.
It was therefore concluded that the decrease in investments in the Community market was not connected to the investment activities of this producer in the Chinese market and did therefore not indicate that the injury suffered was self-inflicted.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da zmanjšanje naložbenih dejavnosti na trgu Skupnosti ni bilo povezano z naložbenimi dejavnostmi tega proizvajalca na kitajskem trgu ter utrpljena škoda zato ni samopovzročena.
Other activities of the Community industry in the PRC
Druge dejavnosti industrije Skupnosti v LRK
One unrelated importer claimed that the production, production capacity and utilisation decreased due to the relationship of one of the Community producers with one of the exporting producers in the PRC.
En nepovezan uvoznik je trdil, da so se proizvodnja, proizvodna zmogljivost in izkoriščanje zmogljivosti zmanjšale zaradi povezave enega od proizvajalcev Skupnosti z enim od proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK.
This importer claimed that the related Chinese producer would serve the South Asian market with the lower priced persulphate produced by the related company in the PRC and as a consequence the Community producer decreased significantly its exports to this area, which would be the reason for the decrease of the production volume in the Community.
Ta uvoznik je trdil, da bi povezani kitajski proizvajalec zalagal jugovzhodni azijski trg s cenovno nižjim persulfatom, ki ga proizvaja povezana družba v LRK, posledično pa bi proizvajalec Skupnosti znatno zmanjšal svoj izvoz na to področje, kar bi lahko povzročilo zmanjšanje obsega proizvodnje v Skupnosti.
It should be noted that the trends with regard to production volume, capacity and capacity utilisation as shown in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation (Table 5) are related to the production volume for products sold in the Community.
Treba je opozoriti, da so trendi glede obsega proizvodnje, zmogljivosti in izkoriščanja zmogljivosti, prikazani v uvodni izjavi 120 začasne uredbe (tabela 5), povezani z obsegom proizvodnje izdelkov, prodanih v Skupnost.
The alleged decrease in exports of one of the Community producer had therefore no impact and the importer's claim had to be rejected.
Domnevno zmanjšanje izvoza enega proizvajalca Skupnosti zato ni imelo učinka in je bilo treba trditev uvoznika zavrniti.
One of the exporting producers in the USA claimed that the increase in production cost as a plausible cause of the injury suffered by the Community industry was not addressed in the provisional Regulation.
Eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz ZDA je trdil, da zvišanje proizvodnih stroškov kot verjetnega vzroka škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Skupnosti, v začasni uredbi ni bilo obravnavano.
This claim had to be rejected.
To trditev je bilo treba zavrniti.
The reason for the Community industry's increase in the unit cost is outlined in recital 125 of the provisional Regulation.
Razlog za zvišanje stroškov na enoto industrije Skupnosti je izpostavljen v uvodni izjavi 125 začasne uredbe.
Thus, it is the result of the decrease in production volume due to the dumped imports at stable capacities.
Zato je to posledica manjšega obsega proizvodnje zaradi dampinškega uvoza pri stabilnih zmogljivostih.
As a result, overhead costs were allocated to lower production volumes which increased the unit costs.
Splošni stroški so bili zato preneseni na zmanjšan obseg proizvodnje, kar je povzročilo višje stroške na enoto.
Since there is a direct link to the dumped imports, the argument of the exporting producer concerned had to be rejected.
Ker gre za neposredno povezavo na dampinški uvoz, je bilo treba utemeljitev proizvajalca izvoznika zavrniti.
Profitability levels of the Community industry in 2003
Stopnje donosnosti industrije Skupnosti leta 2003
The same exporting producer in the USA claimed also that the reasons for the high levels in profitability in 2003 should have been analysed further and taken into consideration in the causality analysis.
Poleg tega je isti proizvajalec izvoznik iz ZDA trdil, da bi bilo treba razloge za visoke stopnje donosnosti leta 2003 natančneje analizirati in upoštevati v analizi vzrokov.
This exporting producer also failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to how the profit levels in 2003 could have broken the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik tudi ni predložil nobenega pojasnila ali dokaza, kako naj bi stopnje donosnosti leta 2003 prekinile vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom in škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Skupnosti.
The question whether the profit margins realised in 2003 would indicate that the Community industry did not suffer material injury during the IP is addressed in recital 63.
Vprašanje ali bi leta 2003 ustvarjene stopnje donosnosti pomenile, da industrija Skupnosti med OP ni utrpela znatne škode, je obravnavano v uvodni izjavi 63.
Cost of the merger of one of the Community producers
Strošek združitve enega od proizvajalcev Skupnosti
The other exporting producer in the USA claimed that the cost increase and consequently the decrease in the Community industry's profitability during the IP were due to the acquisition of a company by one of the Community producers and the consequent significant write-off of intangible assets in their accounting.
Drug proizvajalec izvoznik iz ZDA je trdil, da je za zvišanje stroškov in posledično zmanjšanje donosnosti industrije Skupnosti med OP kriv nakup družbe, ki ga je izvedel eden od proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ter posledično znaten odpis neopredmetenih sredstev v njunih računovodstvih.
However, the downward trend of the profitability as set out in Table 9 of recital 130 of the provisional Regulation is constant and not linked to a specific year during the period considered.
Vendar je trend zmanjševanja donosnosti iz tabele 9 uvodne izjave 130 začasne uredbe stalen in ni povezan z določenim letom v obravnavanem obdobju.
In addition, the investigation revealed that the cost of the acquisition was not borne by the Community producer but by its holding company.
Poleg tega je preiskava pokazala, da stroška nakupa ni nosil proizvajalec Skupnosti ampak njegov holding.
This claim had therefore to be rejected.
To trditev je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
Uncompetitive behaviour of the Community industry
Nekonkurenčno vedenje industrije Skupnosti
One user claimed that the Chinese producers related to the Community industry offered the product concerned on the Community market at levels that were largely above the market prices, while the same producers were able to offer the product at much lower prices in any other given market, and even below the price levels of their competitors in these third markets.
En uporabnik je trdil, da so kitajski proizvajalci, povezani z industrijo Skupnosti, zadevni izdelek na trgu Skupnosti nudili po stopnjah, ki so bile precej nad tržnimi cenami, obenem pa so bili isti proizvajalci sposobni ponuditi izdelek po znatno nižjih cenah na katerem koli drugem trgu in celo pod ravnmi cen njihovih konkurentov na trgih tretjih držav.
This user claimed that the producers concerned should have known that such price offers would be unacceptable for any potential customer and alleged that the Community industry through their links to these producers intentionally refrained to sell the product to certain customers in the Community.
Ta uporabnik je trdil, da bi zadevni proizvajalci morali vedeti, da so ponudbe po taki ceni nesprejemljive za vsako potencialno stranko in da industrija Skupnosti preko svojih povezav s temi proizvajalci določenim strankam v Skupnosti proizvoda namenoma ni prodajala.
Therefore, the decrease in sales volume and market share on the Community market was due to this uncompetitive behaviour rather than the dumped imports.
Zato je zmanjšanje obsega prodaje in tržnega deleža na trgu Skupnosti bolj posledica tega nekonkurenčnega vedenja kot dampinškega uvoza.
It was found that only one of the abovementioned producers was exporting the product concerned to the Community during the IP.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je med OP samo eden od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov izvažal zadevni izdelek v Skupnost.
The arguments with regard to the other producer were therefore considered irrelevant and rejected.
Utemeljitve v zvezi z ostalimi proizvajalci niso bile pomembne in so bile zavrnjene.
As far as the producer in the PRC is concerned, it did indeed export the product concerned during the IP (see also recital 74).
Proizvajalec iz LRK je med OP res izvažal zadevni izdelek (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 74).
However, it was found that business decisions were taken completely independently from the Community producer concerned and in particular, price strategy in the Community market was not agreed.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile njegove poslovne odločitve sprejete povsem neodvisno od zadevnega proizvajalca Skupnosti, predvsem pa ni bilo nobenega dogovora o cenovni strategiji na trgu Skupnosti.
The user concerned did not submit any evidence to support its claim that the Community industry should be held responsible for business decisions of its related exporting producer in the PRC.
Zadevni uporabnik za svojo trditev, da je bila za poslovne odločitve svojega povezanega proizvajalca izvoznika odgovorna industrija Skupnosti, ni predložil nobenega dokaza.
Therefore, on the basis of the information available, this claim was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev na podlagi informacij, ki so na voljo, zavrnjena.
It should also be noted that the evidence submitted with regard to prices by this user was anecdotal and could not be verified, given that it was submitted outside the deadlines required and at a very late stage of the proceeding.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je bil dokaz v zvezi s cenami, ki ga je predložil ta uporabnik, nezanesljiv in ga ni bilo mogoče preveriti, glede na to, da je bil predložen po zahtevanih rokih in zelo pozno v postopku.
In any case, the price offers shown were offers before negotiation and were therefore not final.
V vsakem primeru pa so bile navedene cenovne ponudbe predložene pred pogajanji in zato niso bile končne.
They also did not relate to the IP.
Poleg tega se niso nanašale na OP.
Moreover, the actual verified average sales price of the Community industry was well below the levels of the offers shown.
Dejansko preverjeno povprečje cen industrije Skupnosti je bilo precej pod ravnmi navedenih ponudb.
It is also noted that as in recitals 117 to 119 of the provisional Regulation, average undercutting levels were found to be significant.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 117 do 119 začasne uredbe, je bilo ugotovljeno znatno povprečno nelojalno nižanje cen.
The dumped imports caused a price depression on the Community market and under these circumstances the ‘market price’ is built under unfair conditions and cannot necessarily be used as a benchmark.
Dampinški uvoz je povzročil padec cen na trgu Skupnosti in v teh okoliščinah je „tržna cena“ določena v neobičajnih razmerah in se je zato ne more nujno uporabljati kot merilo.
In any case, this is irrelevant because dumping is defined in Article 1(2) of the basic Regulation, which does not make reference to a ‘reasonable’ or ‘market price’.
V vsakem primeru pa je to nepomembno, ker je damping opredeljen v členu 1(2) osnovne uredbe, ki se ne sklicuje na „primerno“ ali „tržno ceno“.
As far as the price levels of this exporting producer to other third markets are concerned, the evidence submitted in this regard was anecdotal and also could not be verified.
V zvezi z ravnmi cen tega proizvajalca izvoznika na drugih tretjih trgih, so bili zadevni predloženi dokazi nezanesljivi in jih prav tako ni bilo mogoče preveriti.
In addition, these prices were unrelated to the situation in the Community market and therefore irrelevant in the causality analysis.
Poleg tega te cene niso bile povezane s stanjem na trgu Skupnosti in so bile zato za analizo vzročnosti nepomembne.
In any case, no evidence or information was available regarding the different market conditions in these markets.
V vsakem primeru pa ni bil na voljo noben dokaz ali informacija glede različnih tržnih pogojev na teh trgih.
It was considered that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, no meaningful conclusions could be drawn as to the comparability of the prices charged in the different markets.
Na podlagi predloženih dokazov ni mogoče sprejeti nobene sklepne ugotovitve v zvezi s primerljivostjo cen na različnih trgih.
Likewise, the conditions of production and price setting in the PRC, where the related company of one of the Community producer was located, cannot necessarily be compared to the one in the Community market, which, however, may justify difference in price levels.
Podobno tudi ni mogoče primerjati pogojev proizvodnje in določanja cen v LRK, kjer je imela sedež povezana družba enega od proizvajalcev Skupnosti, s tistimi na trgu Skupnosti, kar bi lahko upravičilo razlike med cenami.
In contrast, one of the exporting producers in the USA claimed that the Community industry was responsible for the price depression on the Community market since it pursued a policy of price undercutting with regard to its competitors on the Community market.
Nasprotno pa je eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov v ZDA trdil, da je za padec cen na trgu Skupnosti odgovorna industrija Skupnosti, ker je na trgu Skupnosti proti konkurenci nastopala z nelojalnim nižanjem cen.
The exporting producer supported this argument by submitting several examples where it had to lower its price in order to meet the level of the Community industry's price offer.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je to utemeljitev podprl z več primeri, kjer je moral znižati svojo ceno, če je hotel doseči raven cenovne ponudbe industrije Skupnosti.
The evidence submitted was considered anecdotal and no general conclusions could be drawn therefrom.
Predloženi dokazi se štejejo za nezanesljive in iz njih ni mogoče sprejeti nobenih splošnih sklepnih ugotovitev.
As recitals 85 and 89 show, other examples of the opposite situation have been provided.
Kot navajata uvodni izjavi 85 in 89, so bili na voljo tudi primeri o nasprotnih okoliščinah.
While it shows that there is high degree of competition on the Community market, on the basis of the information available it could not be concluded that the Community industry was driving down the prices on the Community market and this argument had therefore to be rejected.
Informacije, ki so na voljo, kažejo, da je na trgu Skupnosti močna konkurenca, vendar iz njih ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je industrija Skupnosti nižala cene na trgu Skupnosti in je bilo zato treba to utemeljitev zavrniti.
Situation on the world market
Razmere na svetovnem trgu
One importer claimed that the loss of sales of the Community industry is due to the situation in the world market where international customers centralised their purchase strategies.
En uvoznik je trdil, da se je prodaja industrije Skupnosti zmanjšala zaradi stanja na svetovnem trgu, kjer so mednarodne stranke centralizirale svoje nakupne strategije.
This importer did, however, not show how this change in strategies could have an impact on the Community industry consumption and on the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered and this argument had therefore to be rejected.
Vendar ta uvoznik ni navedel, kako naj bi sprememba strategij vplivala na porabo industrije Skupnosti in na vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom in utrpljeno znatno škodo, zato je bilo treba to utemeljitev zavrniti.
Increase in costs of production of the Community industry
Zvišanje proizvodnih stroškov industrije Skupnosti
One Chinese exporting producer claimed that it should have been considered whether the cost increase of the Community industry could have caused the material injury suffered by the Community industry.
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je treba upoštevati, ali bi lahko zvišanje stroškov industrije Skupnosti povzročilo znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Skupnosti.
The development of unit costs during the period considered are not listed in Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation and therefore not systematically mentioned when assessing the situation of the Community industry.
Razvoj stroškov na enoto med obravnavanim obdobjem ni naveden v členu 3(5) osnovne uredbe in zato pri ocenjevanju stanja industrije Skupnosti ni sistematično naveden.
However, as part of the analysis of material injury, sales prices and profitability are systematically addressed, which implies that cost of production is also considered.
Vendar so prodajne cene in donosnost v okviru analize znatne škode sistematično obravnavane, kar pomeni, da so bili upoštevani tudi proizvodni stroški.
In any case, as set out in recital 125 of the provisional Regulation, unit costs were considered in the provisional determinations.
V vsakem primeru, kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 125 začasne uredbe, so stroški na enoto obravnavani v začasnih ugotovitvah.
Thus, recital 125 of the provisional Regulation explains that unit costs of the Community industry increased by 5 % due to a decrease in production volume by stable capacities.
Zato uvodna izjava 125 začasne uredbe pojasnjuje, da so se zaradi zmanjšanja obsega proizvodnje ob nespremenjenih zmogljivostih stroški na enoto industrije Skupnosti zvišali za 5 %.
The production volume decreased due to the loss of sales volume and market share as a consequence of the price pressure from the dumped imports.
Obseg proizvodnje se je zmanjšal zaradi zmanjšanja obsega prodaje in tržnega deleža kot posledice dampinškega uvoza, ki je povzročil pritisk na cene.
It was therefore concluded that the impact of the increase of production cost of the Community industry on the Community industry's negative developments was, if existent at all, only limited.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bil učinek zvišanja proizvodnih stroškov industrije Skupnosti na njen negativni razvoj zanemarljiv, če je sploh obstajal.
In conclusion, it is confirmed that the material injury of the Community industry, which is as mentioned in recital 137 of the provisional Regulation characterised by a downward trend of all injury indicators, was caused by the dumped imports concerned.
Potrjeno je, da je dampinški uvoz povzročil znatno škodo industriji Skupnosti, za katero je značilen padajoči trend vseh kazalnikov škode, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 137 začasne uredbe.
Indeed, the effect of the non-dumped imports from other third countries, in particular, from Turkey, the Community industry's investments as well as other activities in the PRC, the acquisition cost of a third company, the increase in unit costs, the alleged non-efficiency and uncompetitive behaviour of the Community industry and the situation on the world market, on the Community industry's negative developments was, if existent at all, only limited.
Dejansko je bil učinek nedampinškega uvoza iz ostalih tretjih držav, predvsem Turčije, naložb in drugih dejavnosti industrije Skupnosti v LRK, stroškov nakupa tretje družbe, zvišanja stroškov na enoto, domnevnega neučinkovitega in nekonkurenčnega vedenja industrije Skupnosti ter razmer na svetovnem trgu na negativni razvoj industrije Skupnosti zanemarljiv, če je sploh obstajal.
Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known factors on the situation of the Community industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, it is hereby confirmed that these other factors as such do not reverse the fact that the injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped imports.
Glede na analizo, ki je ustrezno razlikovala in ločila učinke vseh znanih dejavnikov na stanje industrije Skupnosti od škodljivih učinkov dampinškega uvoza, se potrdi, da ti drugi dejavniki ne spremenijo dejstva, da je ocenjeno škodo povzročil dampinški uvoz.
Given the above, it is concluded that the dumped imports of persulphates from the PRC, USA and Taiwan have caused material injury within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega se sklene, da je znatno škodo v smislu člena 3(6) osnovne uredbe povzročil uvoz persulfata iz LRK, ZDA in Tajvana.
In the absence of any other comments in this respect, the conclusions in recitals 140 to 153 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb v zvezi s tem ni bilo, se sklepne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od 140 do 153 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
One of the users who did not fill in the questionnaire reply, but submitted comments further to the provisional disclosure, claimed that the Community industry was recovering from the dumped imports and that prices of persulphates in the Community had increased after the IP and prior to the imposition of provisional measures.
Eden od uporabnikov, ki ni izpolnil vprašalnika, ampak je po začasnem razkritju predložil pripombe, je trdil, da industrija Skupnosti okreva po dampinškem uvozu in so se cene persulfatov v Skupnosti po OP in pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov zvišale.
Therefore, there would be no need to impose anti-dumping measures to improve the situation of the Community industry.
Zato protidampinških ukrepov za izboljšanje stanja industrije Skupnosti ne bi bilo treba uvesti.
This user also contested the conclusions in recital 158 of the provisional Regulation that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would allow the Community industry to, inter alia, regain market share and thereby generate better economies of scale.
Navedeni uporabnik je tudi izpodbijal sklepne ugotovitve uvodne izjave 158 začasne uredbe, da bi uvedba začasnih protidampinških dajatev industriji Skupnosti omogočila, da med drugim ponovno pridobi tržni delež in tako doseže izboljšanje ekonomije obsega.
It was claimed that based on the findings of the Community industry's market shares it is one of the largest players in and outside the Community and there would therefore not be any further scope for substantial economies of scale.
Na podlagi ugotovitev o tržnem deležu industrije Skupnosti se je trdilo, da je ta eden od največjih igralcev v in zunaj Skupnosti in zato ne bi bilo možnosti za prihodnji razvoj znatne ekonomije obsega.
The same user questioned the Community industry's intention to invest in its production facilities in the Community and argued that the conclusions in recital 158 of the provisional Regulation in this respect were speculative.
Isti uporabnik je dvomil, da namerava industrija Skupnosti izvesti naložbe v svoje proizvodne obrate v Skupnosti ter utemeljeval, da so bile sklepne ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 158 začasne uredbe nezanesljive.
The same user claimed that anti-dumping duties would not result in restoring fair competition as concluded in recital 158 of the provisional Regulation.
Isti uporabnik je trdil, da protidampinške dajatve na obnovitev poštene konkurence ne bi imele učinka, kot je ugotovljeno v uvodni izjavi 158 začasne uredbe.
Rather, anti-dumping measures would enforce the already dominant position of the Community industry and therefore decrease competition on the Community market.
Protidampinški ukrepi bi prej okrepili že tako prevladujoč položaj industrije Skupnosti in s tem zmanjšali konkurenco na trgu Skupnosti.