natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The applicant claimed that any adjustment of the gas price paid on the Russian domestic market would be unwarranted because its accounting records fully reflected the costs associated with the production of the product concerned in Russia.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da bi bila kakršna koli prilagoditev cene plina na ruskem notranjem trgu neupravičena, saj računovodske evidence popolnoma odražajo stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka v Rusiji.
The applicant further argued that in accordance with Article 1 of the basic Regulation, normal value must always be established with regard to the exporting country and that consequently it was contrary to that article to base findings on information from producers in other third countries.
Vložnik je še trdil, da je treba v skladu s členom 1 osnovne uredbe normalno vrednost vedno določiti glede na državo izvoznico in da je zato v nasprotju s tem členom za podlago ugotovitev vzeti informacije proizvajalcev iz drugih tretjih držav.
As to the applicant’s argument about the alleged breach of Article 1 of the basic Regulation it should be noted that Article 1 only describes the general concept of dumping but the detailed rules on establishing dumping are set out in Article 2 of the basic Regulation.
Glede trditve vložnika o domnevni kršitvi člena 1 osnovne uredbe je treba navesti, da je v členu 1 podan le splošen opis dampinga, podrobna pravila o ugotavljanju dampinga pa so določena v členu 2 osnovne uredbe.
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation provides for the possibility to use data from other representative markets including a third country if costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned.
Člen 2(5) osnovne uredbe omogoča uporabo podatkov z drugih reprezentativnih trgov, vključno s tretjimi državami, če stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo izdelka v preiskavi, niso ustrezno prikazani v računovodskih evidencah zadevne stranke.
The applicant’s argument in this respect had therefore to be rejected.
Trditev vložnika v zvezi s tem je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The applicant also invoked the existence of natural competitive advantages in Russia such as the large availability of natural gas and favourable conditions of supply which would explain the price difference between the natural gas sold domestically and the one exported.
Vložnik je trdil tudi, da ima Rusija naravno konkurenčno prednost zaradi velikih zalog zemeljskega plina in ugodnih pogojev dobave, to pa naj bi pojasnjevalo razliko med ceno zemeljskega plina, ki se prodaja na notranjem trgu, ter tistega za izvoz.
The applicant also alleged that Russian domestic gas prices would be cost covering.
Vložnik je še trdil, da cene plina na ruskem notranjem trgu pokrivajo stroške.
With regard to the existence of natural advantages the applicant did not address the fact that domestic prices for natural gas were regulated in Russia and could not therefore be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
V zvezi z naravnimi prednostmi vložnik ni upošteval dejstva, da so bile domače cene zemeljskega plina v Rusiji nadzorovane in se zanje ni moglo šteti, da ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih.
The applicant did also not submit any evidence in support of these claims.
Prav tako ni predložil dokazov, ki bi podprli njegove trditve.
Furthermore, as regards costs, even if gas prices paid by the applicant covered the unit cost of production and sales of gas incurred by its provider, this argument is irrelevant since the market price of gas is not necessarily linked to the costs of its production and sales.
Glede stroškov je poleg tega treba povedati, da tudi, če je cena plina, ki jo je plačeval vložnik, krila stroške za enoto proizvodnje in prodaje plina, ki ga je imel ponudnik, ta argument ni pomemben, saj tržna cena plina ni nujno neposredno povezana s stroški njegove proizvodnje in prodaje.
These claims had therefore to be rejected.
Te trditve je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The applicant claimed further that an investigation under the basic Regulation should not cover the case of subsidisation of upstream products.
Vložnik je trdil tudi, da preiskava na podlagi osnovne uredbe ne sme zajemati subvencioniranja izdelkov z zgornjega dela proizvodne verige.
It is noted that Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation aims to determine whether costs associated with the production and sale of the like product are reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned.
Opozarja se, da je cilj člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe ugotoviti, ali so bili stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka, v računovodskih evidencah zadevne stranke ustrezno prikazani.
This was found not to be the case for the reasons set out above in recital (17).
Iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 17, je bilo ugotovljeno, da to ne drži.
This is different from the determination of the existence of subsidies which was not subject to the present investigation.
To ni isto kot ugotavljanje subvencioniranja, ki ni bilo predmet sedanje preiskave.
The applicant’s argument therefore had to be rejected.
Trditev vložnika je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
In this context, the applicant also argued that even if particular market situations exist within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, these would only refer to the market of the product concerned, i.e. UAN as such which cannot be extended to the market conditions of the upstream product.
Glede tega je vložnik še trdil, da tudi če obstajajo posebni tržni pogoji v smislu člena 2(3) osnovne uredbe, se ti lahko nanašajo le na trg zadevnega izdelka, tj. SAN kot takšne, ne pa tudi na tržne pogoje izdelka z zgornjega dela verige.
However, as it results from recital (24) above, the adjustment for natural gas prices was done on the basis of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation which, as mentioned above in recital (21) explicitly entitles the Institutions to use the cost of production coming from other representative markets.
Vendar, kot je razvidno iz uvodne izjave 24, je bila prilagoditev cen zemeljskega plina narejena na podlagi člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe, ki izrecno omogoča institucijam, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 21, da uporabijo stroške proizvodnje z drugega reprezentativnega trga.
The applicant finally argued that Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation is limited to the examination of the compliance of the company’s records with the generally accepted accounting principles of the third country concerned and does not require that costs are in line with costs in unregulated markets.
Vložnik je še trdil, da je člen 2(5) osnovne uredbe omejen na proučitev skladnosti računovodske evidence družbe s splošno priznanimi računovodskimi načeli zadevne tretje države in ne določa, da bi morali biti stroški usklajeni s stroški na nenadzorovanih trgih.
It should be noted that in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation two requirements need to be met in order for the costs to be calculated on the basis of the records kept by the exporter: (i) records must be kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles (‘GAAP’) of the country concerned; and (ii) records must reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product concerned.
Treba je opozoriti, da je treba v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe izpolnjevati dve zahtevi, da se lahko stroški izračunajo na podlagi računovodskih evidenc izvoznika. (i) računovodske evidence morajo biti v skladu s splošno priznanimi računovodskimi načeli („GAAP“) zadevne države in (ii) morajo ustrezno odražati stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka.
If, as in the present case, the second requirement is not met because the costs are not reflected in the records, the costs must be adjusted.
Če, kot v sedanjem primeru, druga zahteva ni izpolnjena, ker računovodske evidence ne odražajo stroškov, je treba slednje prilagoditi.
Methodology applied for the gas adjustment
Metodologija, ki se uporablja za prilagoditev stroškov za plin
The applicant claimed that during the RIP of the current investigation gas prices fluctuated significantly and that normal value should be established on a monthly (or at least quarterly) basis rather than on a yearly basis.
Vložnik je trdil, da so med OPP sedanje preiskave cene plina znatno nihale in da bi bilo treba normalno vrednost določiti na mesečni (ali vsaj četrtletni) osnovi namesto na letni.
It should be noted that although gas prices fluctuated during the RIP, these fluctuations were not considered exceptional or particularly significant.
Treba je opozoriti, da so cene plina med OPP sicer res nihale, vendar pa se nihanja niso štela za izjemna ali posebno velika.
Indeed, the market for natural gas is generally characterised by rather important price fluctuations.
Za trg zemeljskega plina so ponavadi značilna velika nihanja cen.
The applicant could not show that there were any specific circumstances and that the price fluctuations during the RIP were significantly beyond usual fluctuations.
Vložnik ni mogel dokazati, da so obstajale posebne okoliščine in da so bila nihanja med OPP dosti večja od običajnih.
Therefore there was no reason to deviate from the methodology used in the investigation leading to the measures in force.
Zato ni bilo razloga, da ne bi uporabili metodologije, ki je bila uporabljena v preiskavi, na kateri temeljijo sedanji ukrepi.
Secondly, information on which basis – according to the applicant – normal values should have been established was only partly available, since the necessary information from the US companies, i.e. SG&A and profit, was only available on a yearly basis.
Poleg tega naj bi bile informacije, na podlagi katerih bi bilo treba določiti normalno vrednost, po trditvah vložnika le delno na voljo, saj so bile potrebne informacije o družbah v ZDA, tj. PSA-stroški in dobiček dostopne le na letni osnovi.
Therefore, even if one would follow the applicant’s argument, no meaningful calculation of monthly or quarterly values would have been possible.
Zato nikakor ne bi bil možen smiseln izračun mesečnih ali četrtletnih vrednosti, tudi če bi upoštevali trditev vložnika.
The applicant also claimed that Waidhaus is not an appropriate reference market given the allegedly non-competitive pricing on gas in Germany and relationships between parties which factor is linked to the price formulae in the gas export contracts from Russia.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da Waidhaus ni ustrezen referenčni trg zaradi domnevno nekonkurenčne cenovne politike plina v Nemčiji in odnosa med stranmi, kar je povezano z izračuni cen v pogodbah z Rusijo za izvoz plina.
It should be noted that the alleged non-competitive domestic gas pricing in Germany was in any event considered irrelevant because it would only concern the prices at which German gas distributors sell the gas on the domestic market, and therefore, this is not linked at all to the price at which Russian exported gas is sold at Waidhaus.
Treba je opozoriti, da se je domnevno nekonkurenčna cenovna politika plina na nemškem domačem trgu, v vsakem primeru štela za nepomembno, ker bi veljala le za cene, po katerih nemški distributerji plina prodajajo plin na notranjem trgu, kar pa nikakor ni povezano s cenami, po katerih se ruski plin za izvoz prodaja pri Waidhausu.
The applicant’s argument that the German incumbents do not have an incentive to negotiate low prices for Russian imported gas at Waidhaus is a mere presumption without any factual background and evidence.
Trditev vložnika, da se nemški distributerji ne zanimajo za znižanje cen ruskega plina, uvoženega pri Waidhausu, je zgolj domneva brez dejanske osnove in dokazov.
The applicant argued further that if the export price at Waidhaus was to be used, the Russian export duty payable for all exports should have been deducted from the Waidhaus price because it was not incurred domestically.
Vložnik je tudi navedel, da je treba od izvozne cene pri Waidhausu, če se bo ta uporabila, odšteti rusko izvozno dajatev, ki se plača za ves uvoz, saj ni nastala na notranjem trgu.
Indeed, the market price at Waidhaus, which was considered as representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, is the price after export taxes and not the prices before these taxes.
Dejansko je tržna cena pri Waidhausu, ki je bil označen kot reprezentativen trg v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe, cena po izvoznih dajatvah in ne cena pred temi.
From the perspective of the buyer it is the price it has to pay at Waidhaus which is relevant, and in this regard it is irrelevant what percentage of that price constitutes an export tax and what percentage is paid to the gas supplier.
Z vidika kupca je to cena, ki jo mora plačati pri Waidhausu, pri čemer pa ni pomembno, kolikšen odstotek te cene je izvozna dajatev in kolikšen odstotek dobi dobavitelj plina.
Given that this price is always well above its costs of production, allowing the gas supplier to make high profits, the market price is not primarily influenced by the amount of the export tax but by the price the market is willing to pay.
Glede na to, da ta cena vedno precej presega stroške proizvodnje, kar dobavitelju plina prinaša velike dobičke, na oblikovanje cene v prvi vrsti ne vpliva višina izvozne dajatve, temveč znesek, ki so ga stranke pripravljene plačati.
It was therefore concluded that the price including the export tax, and not the price before that tax, is the undistorted market driven price.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da je neizkrivljena, torej na trgu oblikovana cena, cena z izvozno dajatvijo, ne pa cena pred dajatvijo.
Consequently, the arguments of the applicant in this regard were rejected.
Zato so bile trditve vložnika v zvezi s tem zavrnjene.
In this context, the applicant also claimed that the mark-up of the local distributor should not be added to the export price at Waidhaus, without however explaining or demonstrating why it considered that the adjustment for the local distributor would have been inappropriate.
V zvezi s tem je vložnik še navedel, da se pribitek lokalnega distributerja ne sme prišteti k izvozni ceni pri Waidhausu, vendar ni razložil ali dokazal, zakaj naj bi bila prilagoditev za lokalnega distributerja neustrezna.
It was considered that since domestic customers were purchasing the gas from local suppliers, it had to be assumed that they would have to pay local distribution costs which are not as such included in the unadjusted Waidhaus price.
Štelo se je, da je treba domnevati, da domače stranke plačujejo stroške lokalne distribucije, ki kot takšni niso vključeni v neprilagojeno ceno pri Waidhausu, ker kupujejo plin pri lokalnih dobaviteljih.
Therefore it was considered that this adjustment was indeed warranted and consequently the applicant’s claim was rejected.
Zato se je štelo, da je prilagoditev upravičena in trditev vložnika je bila zavrnjena.
Selling, General and Administrative costs (‘SG&A costs’)
Prodajni, splošni in administrativni stroški („PSA-stroški“)
SG&A costs and profit could not be established on the basis of the ‘chapeau’ of Article 2(6), first sentence, of the basic Regulation because the applicant had no domestic sales in Russia of the like product.
PSA-stroškov in dobička ni bilo mogoče določiti na podlagi prvega stavka uvoda k členu 2(6) osnovne uredbe, ker vložnik ni imel domače prodaje podobnega izdelka v Rusiji.
Article 2(6)(b) was not applicable either, since for products belonging to the same general category of goods, natural gas is likewise by far the most important raw material and therefore manufacturing costs would very likely also need to be adjusted, for the reasons indicated in recital (17) above.
Prav tako ni bilo mogoče uporabiti člena 2(6)(b), saj je za izdelke, ki spadajo v isto splošno kategorijo blaga, zemeljski plin daleč najpomembnejša surovina, zaradi česar bi bilo zelo verjetno treba prilagoditi tudi stroške proizvodnje, iz razlogov iz uvodne izjave 17.
In the framework of this review, no information was available to properly quantify such adjustment and to establish SG&A costs and the relevant profit margins when selling these products after such adjustment.
V okviru tega pregleda ni bilo na voljo informacij za ustrezno kvantifikacijo takšne prilagoditve ter določitev PSA-stroškov in zadevnih stopenj dobička pri prodaji izdelkov po takšni prilagoditvi.
As the Russian domestic market of products of the same general category is extremely small, information had to be obtained from other representative markets.
Ker je ruski notranji trg izdelkov iste splošne kategorije zelo majhen, je bilo treba informacije pridobiti z drugih reprezentativnih trgov.
In this respect, consideration was given to publicly available information relating to major companies operating in the nitrogen fertilisers business sector.
V zvezi s tem so bile upoštevane javno dostopne informacije, ki se nanašajo na večje družbe, dejavne v poslovnem sektorju dušikovih gnojil.
It was found that the corresponding data from North American (namely US) producers would be the most appropriate for the purpose of the investigation, given the large availability of reliable and complete public financial information from listed companies in this region of the world.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bili ustrezni podatki severnoameriških proizvajalcev (zlasti iz ZDA) najustreznejši za namene te preiskave glede na široko dostopnost zanesljivih in popolnih javnih finančnih informacij družb, ki kotirajo na borzi v tem delu sveta.
Moreover, the North American market showed a significant volume of domestic sales and a considerable level of competition from both domestic and foreign companies.
Poleg tega je severnoameriški trg označeval velik obseg domače prodaje in visoka raven konkurence domačih in tujih družb.
Therefore, SG&A costs and profit were established on the basis of the weighted average of SG&A costs and profit from three North American producers, which were found to be amongst the largest companies in the fertilisers sector, with regard to their North American sales of the same general category of products (nitrogen fertilisers).
Zato so bili PSA-stroški in dobiček določeni na podlagi tehtanega povprečja PSA-stroškov in dobička treh severnoameriških proizvajalcev, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so glede na svojo domačo prodajo iste splošne kategorije izdelkov (dušikova gnojila) med največjimi proizvajalci v sektorju gnojil.
These three producers were considered to be representative of the nitrogen fertilisers business and their SG&A costs and profit as representative of the same type of costs normally incurred by companies operating successfully in that business segment.
Ti trije proizvajalci so se šteli kot reprezentativni za poslovanje z dušikovimi gnojili, njihovi PSA-stroški in dobiček pa reprezentativni za isto vrsto stroškov, ki jih imajo običajno družbe, ki uspešno poslujejo v tem poslovnem sektorju.
Furthermore, there is no indication suggesting that the amount for profit so established exceeds the profit normally realised by Russian producers on sales of products of the same general category on their domestic market.
Poleg tega nič ne kaže, da bi znesek tako določenega dobička presegal dobiček, ki ga običajno imajo ruski proizvajalci pri prodaji izdelkov iste splošne kategorije na svojem notranjem trgu.
Following disclosure the applicant contested the above described methodology claiming that the profit margin used is unreasonable and excessively high, especially in comparison to the profit margin used in previous anti-dumping investigations concerning the same product.
Po razkritju je vložnik izpodbijal zgoraj opisano metodologijo in trdil, da je uporabljena stopnja dobička nerazumna in previsoka, zlasti v primerjavi s stopnjo dobička, uporabljeno v prejšnjih protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z istim izdelkom.
The applicant claimed that the year 2008 on which basis SG&A and profits were established was exceptional in the US market as gas prices were fluctuating considerably and fertiliser prices were exceptionally high which yielded exceptionally high profit rates for US producers.
Vložnik je trdil, da je bilo leto 2008, podlaga za izračun PSA-stroškov in dobičkov, posebno za trg ZDA, saj so cene plina znatno nihale, cene gnojil pa so bile zelo visoke, zaradi česar so proizvajalci ZDA imeli izjemno visoke stopnje dobička.
In general, the present review confirmed that there were no changed circumstances, in the sense of Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, that would justify a deviation from the methodology used in the investigation leading to the measures in force.
Na splošno je bilo s sedanjim pregledom potrjeno, da okoliščine niso bile spremenjene v smislu člena 11(9) osnovne uredbe, kar bi upravičevalo uporabo druge metodologije, kot je bila uporabljena v preiskavi, na kateri temeljijo sedanji ukrepi.
First of all, it was found that profit margins achieved by the same US producers before 2008 were similar to profit margins realised in 2008.
Prvič, ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bile stopnje dobička, ki so jih imeli isti proizvajalci ZDA pred letom 2008, podobni tistim v letu 2008.
Secondly, even if profit levels in 2008 differed from those in prior years, this is normal in a market economy where costs, prices and profits move over time.
Drugič, tudi če bi bile stopnje dobička v letu 2008 drugačne od tistih iz prejšnjih let, bi bilo to normalno, saj se v tržnem gospodarstvu stroški, cene in dobički spreminjajo.
Thirdly, the market for natural gas is generally characterised as volatile.
Tretjič, za trg zemeljskega plina so ponavadi značilna nihanja cen.
A comparison of the gas price levels on US markets and at Waidhaus in 2008 and previous years did not show any diverging trend that would have given grounds for abnormally high profits on the US market.
Primerjava ravni cen plina na trgih ZDA in pri Waidhausu leta 2008 ter v prejšnjih letih niso pokazala odstopajočih gibanj, ki bi lahko bila vzrok za nenormalno velike dobičke na trgu ZDA.
In light of the above, it is considered that there were no grounds to deviate from the methodology described above in recital (36).
Glede na navedeno se šteje, da ni bilo razloga za uporabo drugačne metodologije od tiste, opisane v uvodni izjavi 36.
Furthermore, the applicant alleged that the test of Article 2(6)(c) on the reasonableness of the profit margin used was not applied since the profit margin exceeds the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin within the meaning of Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je vložnik trdil, da ni bil uporabljen test iz člena 2(6)(c) o primernosti uporabljene stopnje dobička, saj stopnja dobička presega dobiček, ki ga običajno imajo drugi izvozniki ali proizvajalci izdelkov iste splošne kategorije na notranjem trgu države porekla v smislu člena 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The applicant did not submit any evidence in support of this claim.
Vložnik ni predložil dokaza v podporo svoji trditvi.
Since the present review was limited to the determination of dumping with regard to the applicant, no information was available concerning other producers in Russia.
Ker je bil ta pregled omejen na ugotavljanje dampinga v zvezi z vložnikom, niso bile na voljo informacije o drugih proizvajalcih iz Rusije.
While noting that gas costs incurred by the applicant have had to be rejected for the reasons outlined above, the applicant’s own reported profitability rate at company level for products sold on the domestic market, after corrections for extraordinary gains and losses from financial activities, is in the same order of magnitude as the profitability rate of the US producers.
Ob upoštevanju, da je bilo treba stroške za plin, ki jih je imel vložnik, iz navedenih razlogov zavreči, je dobičkonosnost, ki jo je sporočil vložnik, na ravni družbe za izdelke, prodane na notranjem trgu, po popravkih za izredni zaslužek in izgubo pri finančnih dejavnostih, enaka dobičkonosnosti proizvajalcev v ZDA.