natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Strongforce Engineering plc, Dartford, United Kingdom,
Strongforce Engineering PLC, Dartford, Združeno kraljestvo,
Hanson Building Products Limited, Somercotes, United Kingdom.
Hanson Building Products Limited, Somercotes, Združeno kraljestvo.
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of PSC wires and strands originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Vse stranke so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravalo priporočiti uvedbo dokončnih protidampinških dajatev na uvoz žic in pletenih žičnih vrvi PSC s poreklom iz LRK in dokončno pobiranje zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo.
One interested party has claimed that a specific type of strand with 19 wires should be excluded from the scope of the proceeding on the grounds that this product type was used for very specific applications, could not be used in concrete reinforcement or suspension elements or for stay-cable bridges, which are the main applications of the product concerned, and it was not produced in the Community.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je trdila, da je treba posebno vrsto pletene žične vrvi iz 19 žic izvzeti iz obsega postopka, ker je uporaba tega izdelka zelo specifična in se ga ne da uporabljati za armirani beton, vzmetne elemente ali napete mostove, ki štejejo za glavne uporabe zadevnega izdelka, ter se poleg tega ni proizvajal v Skupnosti.
The Community industry was consulted and confirmed that the product described, i.e. strand of 19 wires but also strands of more than 19 wires, was not the product concerned.
Industrija Skupnosti je po posvetovanju potrdila, da opredeljeni izdelek, tj. pletene žične vrvi iz 19 žic ter pletene žične vrvi iz več kot 19 žic, niso zadevni izdelek.
The claim has therefore been accepted and strands with 19 wires or more will be excluded from the product scope.
Zato se trditev sprejme, pletene žične vrvi iz 19 žic ali več pa bodo izvzete iz obsega izdelka.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the product concerned and the like product, recitals 14 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb glede zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka, se uvodne izjave 14 do 20 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
One Chinese exporting producer contested the provisional findings with regard to the determination of MET and claimed that criteria 1 to 3 set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation were met.
Kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je izpodbijal začasne ugotovitve glede določitve TGO in trdil, da so merila od 1 do 3 iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena.
As regards criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, the investigation with regard to MET determined that the electricity costs incurred by the exporting producer concerned and which constitute an important part in the total cost of manufacturing were unreliable.
Glede merila 1 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe je bilo v preiskavi v zvezi s TGO ugotovljeno, da so bili stroški porabe električne energije, ki jih je imel zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik in predstavljajo velik del celotnih proizvodnih stroškov, nezanesljivi.
It has been found that electricity costs were invoiced via a third company in liquidation (instead of directly by the supplier of the electricity).
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bili stroški električne energije fakturirani prek tretje družbe v postopku likvidacije (namesto neposredno prek dobavitelja električne energije).
It was explained that the company in liquidation which was originally the owner of the production facilities where the product concerned was produced but which was meanwhile in liquidation was still considered as the owner of part of the facilities.
Pojasnjeno je bilo, da se družba v postopku likvidacije, ki je bila prvotno lastnica proizvodnih objektov, v katerih se je zadevni izdelek proizvajal med postopkom likvidacije, še vedno šteje za lastnico dela objektov.
The electricity company would therefore still invoice all electricity consumption to the company in liquidation which in turn would invoice these costs to the exporting producer concerned.
Družba za distribucijo električne energije zato še vedno fakturira vso porabo električne energije družbi v postopku likvidacije, ki nato te stroške fakturira zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku.
However, it was verified that the exporting producer purchased the production facilities during the IP in 2007 and was at least during part of the IP the legal owner of the production facilities.
Potrjeno je bilo, da je proizvajalec izvoznik kupil proizvodne objekte med OP v letu 2007 in bil vsaj med delom OP zakoniti lastnik teh proizvodnih objektov.
Furthermore, the amounts reported could not be reconciled with the exporting producer’s accounts.
Poleg tega se navedenih zneskov ni dalo uskladiti z izkazi proizvajalca izvoznika.
Finally, subsequent to provisional disclosure, the company did not submit any information or evidence which would have shown the reliability of the electricity costs and which could thus have reversed the provisional findings in this respect.
Po začasnem razkritju družba ni predložila nobenih informacij ali dokazov, ki bi prikazali zanesljivost stroškov porabe električne energije in tako lahko spremenili začasne ugotovitve v zvezi s tem.
The same exporting producer reiterated that the limited duration of its business licence would not indicate significant State interference within the meaning of criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation as determined by the investigation on MET.
Isti proizvajalec izvoznik je ponovno poudaril, da omejeno trajanje dovoljenja za poslovanje ne bo pomenilo večjega vmešavanja države v smislu merila 1 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, kakor je bilo določeno s preiskavo o TGO.
In this regard it is noted that the limited duration of the business licence was found to be an obstacle for long-term business decisions and planning.
V tem smislu se opozarja na ugotovitev, da omejeno trajanje dovoljenja za poslovanje predstavlja oviro pri dolgoročnih poslovnih odločitvah in načrtovanju.
In particular, it was found that companies in similar situations usually benefited from a significantly longer duration of business licences.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da so imele družbe v podobnem položaju koristi od znatno daljšega dovoljenja za poslovanje.
However, subsequent to the provisional disclosure, it could be clarified that the timely extension of the business license of the exporting producer was a simple formality which could not be considered as an obstacle for long-term business decisions and planning anymore.
Vendar se po začasnem razkritju lahko pojasni, da je bilo pravočasno podaljšanje dovoljenja za poslovanje proizvajalca izvoznika le formalnost, ki se ne more več šteti kot ovira pri dolgoročnih poslovnih odločitvah in načrtovanju.
On the above basis, it was concluded that in this particular case the duration of the business licence could not indeed be qualified as significant State interference within the meaning of criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and the exporting producer’s arguments were accepted.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega se je sklenilo, da se v tem posebnem primeru trajanje dovoljenja za poslovanje ne sme šteti kot znatno vmešavanje države v smislu merila 1 iz člena 2(7)(c), zato so bile utemeljitve proizvajalca izvoznika sprejete.
The provisional findings were revised accordingly.
Začasne ugotovitve so bile zato ustrezno popravljene.
The exporting producer concerned also contested the findings that it did not fulfil the conditions set out in criterion 2 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. that it had one clear set of basic accounting records audited in line with international accounting standards.
Zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik je ugovarjal tudi ugotovitvi, da ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz merila 2 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, in sicer da nima jasno določene zbirke računovodskih evidenc, revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
It is noted that the investigation concerning MET revealed that significant amounts of a recurring loan were booked under a wrong position.
Opozarja se, da je preiskava v zvezi s TGO razkrila, da so bili večji zneski večkratnih posojil vknjiženi na nepravem mestu.
Although the exporting producer claimed that this finding would not correspond to the real facts it did not submit any convincing explanation or any valid evidence in support of its claim.
Čeprav je proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da ta ugotovitev ne ustreza dejanskemu stanju, ni predložil nobene prepričljive razlage ali veljavnega dokaza, ki bi podpirala njegovo trditev.
Finally, the same exporting producer claimed that there were no significant distortions carried over from the non-market economy system as set out in criterion 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Isti proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi trdil, da ni bilo nobenih znatnih izkrivljanj, prenesenih iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva, kot je določeno z merilom 3 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In particular, the exporting producer contested the finding that it could borrow money at an interest rate which was significantly below the market rate.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je še izpodbijal ugotovitev, da bi si lahko izposodil denar po obrestni meri, ki je bila precej nižja od tržne.
However, the exporting producer did not provide any new information or evidence which could revise the provisional findings in this respect and this claim had therefore to be rejected.
Vendar pa ni predložil nobenih novih informacij ali dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko ponovno preučili začasne ugotovitve v zvezi s tem. Zato je bilo treba to trditev zavrniti.
On the basis of the above, and despite the findings as described in recital 14, the findings on MET with regard to this exporting producer as set out in the provisional Regulation in recital 35 are hereby confirmed.
Na podlagi navedenega in kljub ugotovitvam iz uvodne izjave 14 so ugotovitve o TGO v zvezi s tem proizvajalcem izvoznikom iz uvodne izjave 35 začasne uredbe potrjene.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of MET, the provisional findings as set out in recitals 25 to 36 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb glede določitve TGO, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 25 do 36 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
The exporting producer to which IT was not granted claimed that its decision-making was sufficiently independent from State interference within the meaning of Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Proizvajalec izvoznik, ki mu ni bila odobrena IO, je trdil, da je bilo njegovo odločanje dovolj neodvisno od vmešavanja države v smislu člena 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In support of this claim, the exporting producer was able to clarify the composition of the company’s board of directors and the voting rights of its shareholders.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je svojo trditev podprl tako, da je pojasnil sestavo upravnega odbora družbe in glasovalne pravice delničarjev.
Thus, the exporting producer could show that it was sufficiently independent from potential State interference in its price setting within the meaning of Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Tako je proizvajalec izvoznik lahko dokazal, da je pri določanju cen dovolj neodvisen od morebitnega vmešavanje države v smislu člena 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In addition, the exporting producer, as mentioned in recital 14, could also demonstrate that the duration of its business licence cannot be qualified as significant State interference.
Poleg tega je lahko proizvajalec izvoznik dokazal, da se trajanje dovoljenja za poslovanje ne more šteti kot veliko vmešavanje države, kakor je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 14.
As a consequence, since this exporting producer met the requirements for IT as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation an individual definitive duty should be calculated applicable to products produced and exported by it.
Ker je proizvajalec izvoznik izpolnil zahteve za IO iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe, je treba izračunati individualno dokončno dajatev za izdelke, ki jih proizvaja in izvaža.
As regards two of the exporting producers to whom IT was granted, new information available after the imposition of the provisional measures showed that key personnel of these companies were members of State bodies within the meaning of Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Glede dveh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jima je bila odobrena IO, so nove razpoložljive informacije po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov pokazale, da so bili upravljavci na ključnih položajih v teh družbah državni uradniki v smislu člena 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Both companies omitted this information in their claim for MET/IT.
Obe družbi sta v svojih trditvah v zvezi s TGO/IO to informacijo izpustili.
It was considered that the omission of such information was misleading within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation and the information provided in their respective claims for MET/IT should be disregarded.
Šteje se, da je bil izpust te informacije zavajajoč v smislu člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe in da se zato informacije, predložene v njunih trditvah v zvezi s TGO/IO, ne smejo upoštevati.
The companies concerned were given the opportunity to provide further explanations in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zadevni družbi sta imeli možnost, da predložita nadaljnja pojasnila v skladu s členom 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
However, none of the companies concerned provided satisfactory explanations.
Vendar nobena od njiju ni predložila zadovoljivih pojasnil.
On this basis IT was denied to the above companies.
Zato jima IO ni bila odobrena.
As regards the third company to which IT was granted, the Community industry questioned whether it was in fact a wholly foreign owned company and whether it therefore fulfilled the criterion set out in Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Glede tretje družbe, ki ji je bila odobrena IO, je industrija Skupnosti podvomila, da je ta družba dejansko v celoti v tuji lasti in izpolnjuje merilo iz člena 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
However, all relevant payments and bank transfers when acquiring the company could be verified and reconciled during the investigation demonstrating that the company was a wholly foreign owned company.
Vendar so se lahko vsa ustrezna plačila in bančna nakazila v zvezi z nakupom družbe med preiskavo preverila in uskladila, s čimer se je lahko dokazalo, da je družba v celoti v tuji lasti.
Certain interested parties claimed that the choice of the analogue country was inappropriate.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da je izbira primerljive države neustrezna.
It was claimed, in particular, that due to the fact that only one producer of PSC wires and strands existed in the Turkish market, the level of competition in Turkey would be insufficient to base normal value on data concerning that producer.
Trdilo se je, da zaradi obstoja samo enega proizvajalca žic in pletenih žičnih vrvi PSC na turškem trgu raven konkurence v Turčiji ne zadostuje za določitev normalne vrednosti, ki se izračuna na podlagi podatkov navedenega proizvajalca.
These parties, however, did not submit any new evidence in this regard but only reiterated the claims made prior to the imposition of the provisional measures.
Vendar te stranke v zvezi s tem niso predložile nobenega novega dokaza, pač pa samo ponovile trditve, izražene pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov.
As outlined in recital 44 of the provisional Regulation, even though there was only one producer in Turkey, imports into Turkey were substantial, i.e. they accounted for more than 50 % of the total market.
Čeprav je v Turčiji le en proizvajalec, je bil uvoz v Turčijo precejšen, saj je prestavljal več kot 50 % celotnega trga, kakor je opisano v uvodni izjavi 44 začasne uredbe.
On this basis, and considering that none of the producers of other potential analogue countries cooperated in the present investigation, it is confirmed that Turkey constitutes an appropriate analogue country within the meaning of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi tega in upoštevajoč, da nobeden od proizvajalcev drugih morebitnih primerljivih držav ni sodeloval v sedanji preiskavi, se potrdi, da je Turčija ustrezna primerljiva država v smislu člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the analogue country, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals 40 to 45 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb v zvezi s primerljivo državo, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 40 do 45 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Method for calculating the normal value
Metoda za izračun normalne vrednosti
One exporting producer claimed that the normal value used was not appropriate since for most product types, as indicated in recitals 48 and 49 of the provisional Regulation, normal value was constructed on the basis of the costs of manufacturing of the Turkish producer.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da uporabljena normalna vrednost ni bila ustrezna, ker je bila za večino vrst izdelkov, kakor je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 48 in 49 začasne uredbe, konstruirana na osnovi stroškov izdelave turškega proizvajalca.
This exporting producer argued that normal value, for those product types exported by the Chinese exporters, should have been based on the cost of production of the Chinese exporters themselves.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da bi morala normalna vrednost za tiste vrste izdelkov, ki so jih izvozili kitajski izvozniki, temeljiti na proizvodnih stroških teh kitajskih izvoznikov.
It is noted that the basic Regulation in Article 2(7)(a) expressly foresees that normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value of a market economy country.
Opozori se, da osnovna uredba v členu 2(7)(a) izrecno predvideva, da se normalna vrednost določi na osnovi cene ali konstruirane vrednosti v državi s tržnim gospodarstvom.
Therefore, the fact that normal value was determined on the basis of constructed values does not allow the conclusion that the values used were inappropriate.
Zato na podlagi dejstva, da je bila normalna vrednost določena na osnovi konstruiranih vrednosti, ni mogoče sklepati, da so uporabljene vrednosti neustrezne.
It is noted that since MET was not granted to the exporter in question its costs related to the exported models were considered unreliable.
Opozori se, da se so stroški v zvezi z izvoženimi modeli šteli za nezanesljive, ker obravnavanemu izvozniku ni bila odobrena TGO.
The purpose of the selection of an analogue country is to establish reliable costs and prices based on the information gathered in an appropriate analogue country.
Primerljiva država se izbere, da se določijo zanesljivi stroški in cene, ki temeljijo na informacijah, zbranih v ustrezni primerljivi državi.
Since it has been determined that Turkey was an appropriate choice there were no grounds to consider that costs related to the product concerned were not reliable or inappropriate.
Ker je bilo določeno, da je Turčija ustrezna izbira, ni bilo nobenih razlogov, da bi se stroški v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom šteli za nezanesljive ali neustrezne.
The exporting producer concerned did not come forward with any specific reason (other than the ones mentioned in recital 25) that the choice of the analogue country was inappropriate, in particular on which grounds it was considered that the product types produced and sold by this exporting producer and the ones produced and sold by the producer in the analogue country were not comparable.
Zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik ni predložil nobenega posebnega dokaza (razen tistih iz uvodne izjave 25), da izbira primerljive države ne bi bila ustrezna, na podlagi česar se je štelo, da vrste izdelkov, ki jih je proizvedel in prodal ta proizvajalec izvoznik, ter vrste izdelkov, ki jih je proizvedel in prodal proizvajalec v primerljivi državi, niso primerljivi.
These claims had therefore to be rejected.
Te trditve je bilo treba zato zavrniti.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the method for calculating the normal value, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals 46 to 50 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb glede metode za izračun normalne vrednosti, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 46 do 50 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
The exporting producer mentioned in recital 52 of the provisional Regulation who made export sales via its related importer in the Community claimed that when constructing the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the actual profit earned by the related importer when reselling PSC wires and strands in the Community should have been used.
Proizvajalec izvoznik iz uvodne izjave 52 začasne uredbe, ki je izvažal prek povezanega uvoznika v Skupnosti, je trdil, da bi moral biti pri oblikovanju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe uporabljen dejanski dobiček, ki ga je ustvaril povezani uvoznik pri preprodaji PSC v Skupnosti.
It is noted that sales prices between related parties are considered unreliable due to the relationship between the buyer and the seller.
Opozarja se, da se prodajne cene med povezanimi strankami štejejo za nezanesljive zaradi razmerja med kupcem in prodajalcem.
Consequently, the profit margin resulting from a resale has also to be considered as unreliable.
Zato se mora tudi stopnja dobička iz preprodaje šteti za nezanesljivo.
The exporting producer did not submit any evidence that the profit margin of its related importer would be none the less reliable.
Proizvajalec izvoznik ni predložil nobenega dokaza o tem, da je stopnja dobička njegovega povezanega uvoznika kljub temu zanesljiva.
It is noted that for the exporting producer mentioned in recital 32, IT was denied for the reasons set out in recitals 22 and 23 and since its dumping margin was therefore determined on the basis of the methodology outlined in recital 41, the question of the methodology applied when determining this exporting producer’s export price has become irrelevant.
Opozori se, da je vprašanje metodologije, uporabljene za določanje izvozne cene za proizvajalca izvoznika iz uvodne izjave 32, postalo nepomembno, ker mu IO ni bila odobrena zaradi razlogov iz uvodnih izjav 22 in 23 in posledično je bila njegova stopnja dampinga določena na podlagi metodologije iz uvodne izjave 41.
With regard to one of the exporting producers to whom IT was granted, the Community industry questioned the reliability of its export price reported.
Glede enega od proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki mu je bila odobrena IO, je industrija Skupnosti podvomila o zanesljivosti njegove prijavljene izvozne cene.
It was argued that given the low quantity exported during the IP, as well as the particular circumstances (in particular the product exported did not have the required homologation certificate) would indicate a relationship between the importer and the exporting producer and the corresponding export price should therefore be disregarded.
Trdilo se je, da so nizke izvožene količine med OP in posebne okoliščine (izvoženi izdelek ni imel zahtevanega potrdila o homologaciji) kazale na razmerje med uvoznikom in proizvajalcem izvoznikom, zato se ustrezne izvozne cene ne sme upoštevati.
However, the Community industry could not submit any evidence in support to their claim.
Vendar industrija Skupnosti ni mogla predložiti nobenega dokaza, ki bi podprla njeno trditev.
The investigation did furthermore not reveal any relationship between the exporting producer and the unrelated importer.
Preiskava prav tako ni razkrila nobenega razmerja med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in povezanim uvoznikom.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the determination of the export price, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recital 51 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb v zvezi z določitvijo izvozne cene, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 51 začasne uredbe potrdijo.