natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Their comments were taken into account where warranted and substantiated by evidence,
Njihove pripombe so bile upoštevane, če so bile upravičene in utemeljene z dokazi –
The partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059091 and originating in Russia, initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping measures in force.
Delni vmesni pregled protidampinških ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo za uvoz trdnih gnojil z deležem amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, uvrščenih pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059091 in s poreklom iz Rusije, ki se je začel v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96, se zaključi brez spremembe veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov.
Council Regulation (EC) No 237/2008
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 237/2008
terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Ukraine
o zaključku delnega vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96 o protidampinški dajatvi za uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom, med drugim, iz Ukrajine
On 22 January 2001 the Council imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 [2], a definitive anti-dumping duty (the existing measures) of EUR 33,25 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 and originating, inter alia, in Ukraine.
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 132/2001 [2] je Svet 22. januarja 2001 uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev („obstoječi ukrepi“) v višini 33,25 EUR/tono na uvoz amonijevega nitrata, ki se uvršča pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090 ter s poreklom, med drugim, iz Ukrajine.
The investigation that led to the existing measures will be referred to as the original investigation.
Preiskava, ki je privedla do teh ukrepov, bo v nadaljnjem besedilu opredeljena kot „prvotna preiskava“.
On 17 May 2004, following a partial interim review, by Regulation (EC) No 993/2004 [3] the Council exempted from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imports to the Community of the product concerned produced by companies from which undertakings would be accepted by the Commission.
Svet je po delnem vmesnem pregledu 17. maja 2004 z Uredbo (ES) št. 993/2004 [3] uvoz zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost, ki ga proizvajajo družbe, od katerih bi Komisija sprejela zaveze, oprostil protidampinških dajatev, uvedenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 132/2001.
By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/2004 [4], undertakings were accepted for a period of 6 months and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1996/2004 [5] for a further period until 20 May 2005.
Z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1001/2004 [4] so bile zaveze sprejete za obdobje 6 mesecev, z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1996/2004 [5] pa še za nadaljnje obdobje do 20. maja 2005.
The purpose of these undertakings was to take account of certain consequences of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 Member States on 1 May 2004.
Namen teh zavez je bil upoštevati nekatere posledice širitve Evropske unije na 25 držav članic z dne 1. maja 2004.
By Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, following an interim review limited in scope to the definition of the product concerned, the Council decided that the definition of the product concerned should be clarified and that the measures in force should apply to the product concerned when incorporated in other fertilisers, in proportion to their content of ammonium nitrate, together with other marginal substances and nutrients.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 945/2005 na podlagi opravljenega vmesnega pregleda, po obsegu omejenega na opredelitev zadevnega izdelka, odločil, da je treba opredelitev zadevnega izdelka razjasniti in da se obstoječi ukrepi v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom uporabljajo, kadar je ta vključen v druga gnojila, sorazmerno njihovemu deležu amonijevega nitrata in drugih nepomembnih snovi in hranil.
Following an expiry review initiated in January 2006, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 442/2007 [6], renewed these measures at their current level for two years.
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, ki se je začel januarja 2006, je Svet z Uredbo (ES) št. 442/2007 [6] za dve leti obnovil te ukrepe na njihovi tedanji ravni.
The measures consist of specific duties.
Ti ukrepi so sestavljeni iz posebnih dajatev.
A request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was lodged by Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Azot Cherkassy (the applicant), an exporting producer from Ukraine.
Zahtevek za delni vmesni pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe je vložila odprta delniška družba (OJSC) Azot Cherkassy („vložnik“), ki je proizvajalka izvoznica iz Ukrajine.
The request was limited in scope to dumping as far as the applicant is concerned.
Zahtevek je bil po obsegu omejen na preiskavo dampinga glede vložnika.
In its request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the applicant claimed that the circumstances with regard to dumping, on the basis of which the measures in force were established, had changed and that these changes were of a lasting nature.
V tem zahtevku je v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe vložnik trdil, da so se okoliščine v zvezi z dampingom, na podlagi katerih so bili uvedeni veljavni ukrepi, spremenile in da so te spremembe trajne.
The applicant further alleged that a comparison of normal value based on its own costs or domestic prices and export prices to the Community would lead to a reduction of dumping significantly below the level of the current measures.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da bi primerjava normalne vrednosti, ki temelji na njegovih lastnih stroških ali domačih cenah, in izvoznih cen v Skupnost pomenila zmanjšanje dampinga znatno pod stopnjo trenutnih ukrepov.
Therefore, it claimed that the continued imposition of measures at the existing levels was no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Zato je trdil, da nadaljevanje ukrepov na obstoječi ravni ne bi bilo več potrebno za izravnavo dampinga.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence, the Commission announced on 19 December 2006 the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union [7].
Po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom je Komisija ugotovila, da zahtevek vsebuje zadostne dokaze prima facie, in 19. decembra 2006 z obvestilom o začetku, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [7], naznanila začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
The review was limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant.
Pregled je bil po obsegu omejen na proučitev dampinga v zvezi z vložnikom.
The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006 (the review investigation period or RIP).
Preiskava dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. oktobra 2005 do 30. septembra 2006 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
The Commission officially informed the applicant, the representatives of the exporting country and the association of Community producers about the initiation of the review.
Komisija je o začetku preiskave uradno obvestila vložnika, predstavnike države izvoznice in združenje proizvajalcev Skupnost.
In order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent the questionnaire to the applicant and received the reply within the deadline set for that purpose.
Komisija je z namenom pridobitve za preiskavo potrebnih podatkov vložniku poslala vprašalnik, ta pa ga je izpolnjenega vrnil v določenem roku.
The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping.
Komisija je tudi poiskala in preverila vse podatke, ki so bili po njenem mnenju potrebni za določitev dampinga.
The Commission carried out verification visits at the applicants premises in Cherkassy.
Komisija je preveritvene obiske izvedla v poslovnih prostorih vložnika v Cherkassyju.
Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the present review be terminated and that the existing anti-dumping measures be maintained on imports of the product concerned by the applicant, and the parties were given an opportunity to comment.
Zainteresirane stranke so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravalo predlagati zaključek sedanjega pregleda in ohraniti obstoječe protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz zadevnega izdelka, ki ga proizvaja vložnik. Stranke so dobile priložnost, da predložijo svoje pripombe.
The comments received were duly considered and taken into account, where appropriate.
Prejete pripombe so bile ustrezno preučene in upoštevane, kjer je bilo to primerno.
The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation as clarified by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, namely solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight originating in Ukraine, falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059091 (hereinafter referred to as AN).
Zadevni izdelek je enak kot v prvotni preiskavi, kot je pojasnjeno z Uredbo (ES) št. 945/2005, tj. trdna gnojila z deležem amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, s poreklom iz Ukrajine, ki so uvrščena pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059091 (v nadaljnjem besedilu „AN“).
AN is a solid nitrogen fertiliser commonly used in agriculture.
AN je trdno dušikovo gnojilo, ki se v kmetijstvu pogosto uporablja.
It is manufactured from ammonia and nitric acid, and its nitrogen content exceeds 28 % by weight in prilled or granular form.
Pridobiva se iz amonijaka in dušikove kisline, delež dušika pa presega 28 mas. % v obliki kristalov in granul.
This review investigation confirmed what was established in the original investigation — that AN is a pure commodity product, and its quality and basic physical characteristics are identical whatever the country of origin.
Ta preiskava v zvezi s pregledom je potrdila, kar je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi, namreč da je AN čist izdelek, njegova kakovost in osnovne fizikalne lastnosti pa so enake ne glede na poreklo.
The AN manufactured and sold by the applicant on its domestic market in Ukraine and the one exported to the Community have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses.
AN, ki ga vložnik proizvaja in prodaja na domačem trgu v Ukrajini, in AN, ki ga izvaža v Skupnost, imata enake osnovne fizikalne in kemične lastnosti in v glavnem enake načine uporabe.
Therefore, these products are considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato se ta izdelka obravnavata kot podobna izdelka 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, ni bilo sprejetih sklepnih ugotovitev.
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, namely that the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total export sales volume of the applicant to the Community.
Za določitev normalne vrednosti je bilo najprej preverjeno, ali je bila vsa domača prodaja vložnika reprezentativna v skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe, tj. ali je celoten obseg takšne prodaje predstavljal vsaj 5 % vsega izvoza vložnika v Skupnost.
The investigation showed that the applicant sold only one type of AN and that this type was sold in representative quantities on the domestic market.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je vložnik prodajal le en tip AN in da je bil ta tip prodajan v reprezentativnih količinah na domačem trgu.
The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of AN could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation, by comparing domestic net sales price with the calculated cost of production.
Komisija je nato preverila, ali je domačo prodajo AN mogoče označiti kot prodajo v običajnem poteku trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe, in sicer s primerjavo domače neto prodajne cene z izračunanimi stroški proizvodnje.
When the applicants cost of production was assessed, it was found that gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the applicants records.
Pri oceni stroškov proizvodnje vložnika je bilo ugotovljeno, da stroški plina niso bili ustrezno prikazani v računovodskih evidencah vložnika.
It should be noted that energy costs, such as gas, represent a major proportion of the manufacturing cost and a significant proportion of the total cost of production.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da stroški energije, kot na primer plina, predstavljajo glavni delež proizvodnih stroškov ter znaten delež vseh stroškov proizvodnje.
As regards gas costs, it was found that Ukraine is importing the majority of the gas consumed in the production of AN from Russia.
V zvezi s stroški plina je bilo ugotovljeno, da Ukrajina večino plina, porabljenega pri proizvodnji AN, uvozi iz Rusije.
In this regard, all available data indicate that Ukraine imports natural gas from Russia at prices which are significantly below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas.
V zvezi s tem vsi razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da Ukrajina zemeljski plin iz Rusije uvozi po cenah, ki so precej nižje od tržnih cen, ki se plačujejo na nenadzorovanih trgih zemeljskega plina.
The investigation revealed that the price of natural gas from Russia when exported to the Community was approximately twice as high as the domestic gas price in the Ukraine.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je cena ruskega plina, izvoženega v Evropsko skupnost, približno dvakrat višja od domače cene plina v Ukrajini.
Therefore, as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the gas costs borne by the applicant were adjusted on the basis of information from other representative markets.
Zato so bili v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe stroški plina, ki jih je imel vložnik, prilagojeni na podlagi informacij z drugih reprezentativnih trgov.
Following disclosure, the applicant argued 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 vsaka 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 the cost of production of the like product under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation is examined, it must be determined whether the costs as booked in the companys accounts reasonably reflect 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 in recital 19, this was found not to be the case.
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 19, je bilo ugotovljeno, da to ne drži.
Furthermore, the applicant claimed that its normal value should be based on its sales of the product concerned on its domestic market alleging that there is no reason to consider that these sales were not made in the ordinary course of trade.
Nadalje je vložnik trdil, da mora njegova normalna vrednost temeljiti na njegovi prodaji zadevnega izdelka na domačem trgu, ter da ni razloga za domnevo, da ta prodaja ni potekala po običajnem poteku trgovine.
In this regard, it should be noted that in order to establish whether domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, namely 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.
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da je za ugotovitev, ali je domača prodaja potekala v običajnem poteku trgovine zaradi cene, tj. ali je bila dobičkonosna, treba najprej ugotoviti, ali so bili stroški vložnika zanesljiva osnova v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
Only after costs have been reliably established, can it be determined which methodology to establish normal value should be used.
Šele ko so stroški zanesljivo ugotovljeni, je mogoče določiti, katero metodologijo je treba uporabiti za določitev normalne vrednosti.
As outlined in recitals 28 and following, since the comparison of domestic net sales price with the adjusted cost of production during the RIP showed that no domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, domestic prices of the applicant could not be used for the establishment of the normal value.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 28, je primerjava domače neto prodajne cene s prilagojenimi stroški proizvodnje med OPP pokazala, da domača prodaja ni potekala po običajnem poteku trgovine. Zato domačih cen vložnika ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za določitev normalne vrednosti.
The applicant also argued that the investigation was based on data during the RIP and that the conclusions did therefore not take into account developments after this period such as, in particular, the continuous increase of gas prices and the increase in domestic consumption of fertilisers in Ukraine.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da je preiskava temeljila na podatkih iz OPP in da sklepne ugotovitve torej niso upoštevale razvojnih dogodkov po tem obdobju, zlasti nenehnega višanja cen plina in večje domače potrošnje gnojil v Ukrajini.
In this respect, it should be recalled that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, for the purpose of a representative finding, an investigation period is to be selected which, in the case of dumping, is normally to cover a period of not less than six months immediately before to the initiation of the proceeding.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da se skladno s členom 6(1) osnovne uredbe za namene reprezentativne ugotovitve izbere obdobje preiskave, ki pri dampingu običajno traja najmanj šest mesecev neposredno pred začetkom postopka.
It is also recalled that in line with usual Community practice, the RIP concerning dumping lasted one year.
Treba pa je opozoriti tudi na to, da je v skladu z običajno prakso Skupnosti obdobje preiskave o dampingu trajalo eno leto.
It was considered whether the development of gas prices in Ukraine subsequent to the RIP should have been taken into consideration when determining the dumping margin of the applicant.
Obravnavano je bilo tudi, ali bi bilo treba razvoj cen plina v Ukrajini po OPP upoštevati pri določanju stopnje dampinga vložnika.
In this regard, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, information relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period is, normally, not to be taken into account.
V tem pogledu je treba opozoriti, da se skladno s členom 6(1) osnovne uredbe informacije, ki se navezujejo na čas po obdobju preiskave, običajno ne upoštevajo.
In line with consistent Community practice, this was interpreted as meaning that events relating to a period subsequent to the IP can only be taken into account if they are manifest, undisputed and lasting.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso Skupnosti to pomeni, da se dogodki, ki se nanašajo na čas po obdobju preiskave, upoštevajo le, če so očitni, nedvoumni in trajni.
In this regard, although an increase in gas prices could be observed after the RIP, it could not be established with sufficient certainty that this price increase was indeed of a lasting nature.
Čeprav so cene plina po OPP narasle, v zvezi s tem ni bilo mogoče z zadostno gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali je bila ta rast cen dejansko trajna.
It was found that the information available on future developments of gas prices in Ukraine consisted in mere estimates rather than verifiable information in relation to actual gas prices.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bile informacije o prihodnjem razvoju cen plina v Ukrajini zgolj napovedi, ne pa preverljive informacije v zvezi z dejanskimi cenami plina.
Article 6(1) allows the use of information and data outside the IP (or in cases of reviews the RIP) only under very exceptional circumstances.
Člen 6(1) dovoljuje uporabo informacij in podatkov izven OP (ali v primerih pregledov OPP) le v zelo izjemnih okoliščinah.
The situation in the present case was not considered such as to justify the use of data or information outside the RIP.
Položaj v tem primeru se ni štel za takšnega, ki bi upravičil uporabo podatkov ali informacij izven OPP.
Furthermore, the applicant did not substantiate its arguments as no evidence was submitted to show that data relating to a period after the RIP are more representative than those relating to the RIP.
Poleg tega vložnik ni utemeljil svojih argumentov, saj ni predložil dokazov, ki bi pokazali, da so podatki za obdobje po OPP bolj reprezentativni kot podatki za OPP.
As for the fact that the consumption of fertilisers in Ukraine has increased after the RIP, the applicant did not explain or show to what extent this fact could have an impact on the findings made on the basis of the information related to the RIP.
V zvezi s povečano potrošnjo gnojil v Ukrajini po OPP vložnik ni pojasnil ali pokazal, v kolikšni meri bi to dejstvo lahko vplivalo na ugotovitve na podlagi informacij, povezanih z OPP.
Thus, the applicant did not submit sufficient information on the basis of which meaningful conclusions could have been drawn, nor was any other information available which could have supported the applicant’s claim in this regard.
Zato vložnik ni predložil zadostnih informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče sprejeti tehtne sklepne ugotovitve, prav tako pa ni bilo na voljo drugih informacij, ki bi lahko podprle vložnikovo trditev v zvezi s tem.
Since any conclusions on this basis would have been speculative the applicants claim was rejected.
Ker bi lahko bile sklepne ugotovitve na tej osnovi špekulativne, je bila trditev vložnika zavrnjena.
The adjusted gas price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), net of transport costs.
Prilagojena cena plina je temeljila na povprečni ceni ruskega plina pri prodaji za izvoz na nemško/češki meji (Waidhaus) in neto stroških prevoza.
The applicant further argued that Ukraine purchases gas at similar market conditions as the Community and that the prices paid for gas by the applicant in 2007 were higher than the gas price at the Ukrainian-Russian border in the same period.
Vložnik je nadalje zatrjeval, da Ukrajina kupuje plin v podobnih tržnih razmerah kot Skupnost in da so bile cene, ki jih je vložnik leta 2007 plačal za plin, višje od cene plina na ukrajinsko-ruski meji v istem obdobju.
However, the applicant did not submit any evidence to substantiate its claims and has thus failed to show that the conditions mentioned in recital 24 for taking into account events relating to a period subsequent to the RIP are fulfilled.
Vendar pa vložnik ni predložil dokazov, s katerimi bi utemeljil svoje trditve, in torej ni uspel pokazati, da so pogoji, omenjeni v uvodni izjavi 24, za upoštevanje dogodkov, povezanih z obdobjem po OPP, izpolnjeni.