natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The existence of such loans significantly distorts the financial situation of the company, and de facto constitutes a debt write off. Additionally, the non-repayment of the principal of a loan is not in line with market economy principles.
Obstoj takih posojil zelo izkrivlja finančni položaj družbe in dejansko predstavlja odpis dolgov. Poleg tega neodplačilo glavnice posojila ni v skladu z načeli tržnega gospodarstva.
Furthermore, it was argued that the income tax reduction was not a subsidy and therefore could not be treated as a distortion carried over from the non-market economy system.
Poleg tega se je trdilo, da znižanje davka od prihodka ni bila subvencija in se zato ne more obravnavati kot izkrivljanje, preneseno iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
This argument was rejected as the application of the income tax reduction is contingent upon use of domestic equipment over imported one, and therefore constitutes a specific subsidy.
Ta argument je bil zavrnjen, ker je uporaba znižanja davka od prihodka pogojena z uporabo domače opreme v primerjavi z uvoženo, zato predstavlja posebno subvencijo.
The Moldovan producer could not demonstrate that it met any of the MET criteria.
Moldavski proizvajalec ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merila TGO.
Regarding decision making and costs (criterion 1) it was found that the company's top management held key positions in the administration of the Transnistrian region of Moldova, the breakaway but not internationally recognised ‘Transnistrian Moldovan Republic’ (hereinafter TMR), and that there were significant distortions regarding costs.
V zvezi s sprejemanjem odločitev in stroški (merilo 1) je bilo ugotovljeno, da je najvišje vodstvo družbe zavzemalo ključne položaje v upravi pridnestrske regije Moldavije, tj. separatistična, vendar mednarodno nepriznana „Pridnestrska moldavska republika“ (v nadaljevanju „PMR“), ter da so obstajala velika izkrivljanja glede stroškov.
With regard to criterion 2, it was found that the company did not have a clear set of independently audited accounting records, and serious shortcomings were identified with regard to the accuracy and consistency of the accounts, thus rendering the accounts unreliable.
V zvezi z merilom 2 je bilo ugotovljeno, da družba nima jasno določene zbirke neodvisno pregledanih računovodskih evidenc ter da obstajajo resne pomanjkljivosti glede točnosti in skladnosti finančnega poročila, zaradi česar je to nezanesljivo.
Regarding criterion 3, there were distortions carried over from the non-market economy system which affected the costs.
V zvezi z merilom 3 so bila ugotovljena izkrivljanja, prenesena iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva, kar je vplivalo na stroške.
The most significant was that the privatisation process of the company was made at a price below market value.
Najpomembnejše takšno izkrivljanje je bilo, da se je proces privatizacije družbe opravil po ceni pod tržno vrednostjo.
It was also detected that the company is frequently involved in barter trade practices.
Prav tako je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila družba pogosto vpletena v prakso menjalne trgovine.
Regarding criterion 4, concerning the legal certainty and stability of operations, it was found that the company does not for the most comply with the Moldovan legal framework.
V zvezi z merilom 4 o pravni varnosti in stabilnosti dejavnosti je bilo ugotovljeno, da družba v večini ni v skladu z moldavskim pravnim okvirom.
Finally, it was also found that the company operates, inter alia, in a currency not internationally recognised and whose exchange rate is not freely set in response to market signals (criterion 5).
Nazadnje, ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da družba posluje med drugim v valuti, ki ni mednarodno priznana in katere menjalni tečaj ni prosto določen kot odgovor na tržne signale (merilo 5).
Consequently, it was concluded that the Moldovan exporting producer did not demonstrate that it fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da moldavski proizvajalec izvoznik ni dokazal, da izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The Moldovan exporting producer opposed this decision.
Moldavski proizvajalec izvoznik je tej odločitvi nasprotoval.
In general, it claimed that the application of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation to the RM constitutes a violation by the Community of its WTO commitments vis-à-vis the RM.
Na splošno je trdil, da Skupnost z uporabo člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe za RM krši svoje obveznosti do RM v okviru STO.
In reply to this argument, it should be re-called that the note to Article VI of the GATT acknowledges that, in cases of imports from certain countries where difficulties may exist in determining price comparability for the purposes of establishing whether dumping is taking place, WTO members may consider that a comparison with domestic prices in such a country may not always be appropriate.
Kot odgovor na ta argument je treba opozoriti na opombo iz člena VI GATT, ki priznava, da v primerih uvoza iz določenih držav, v katerih lahko obstajajo težave pri določanju primerljivosti cen za ugotavljanje dampinga, člani STO lahko obravnavajo, da primerjava z domačimi cenami v taki državi ni vedno ustrezna.
In the case of the RM, it is considered that such difficulties exist.
V primeru RM se obravnava, da take težave obstajajo.
In these circumstances, normal value will be determined in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
V teh okoliščinah se bo normalna vrednost določila v skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, it is noted that Article 2(7)(a) specifically mentions the RM in the list of non-market economy countries to whom this provision applies.
Poleg tega člen 2(7)(a) posebej navaja RM na seznamu držav netržnega gospodarstva, za katere se ta določba uporablja.
It also claimed that mandatory time-limits set out in the basic Regulation were not respected.
Trdi se tudi, da se obvezni časovni roki, določeni v osnovni uredbi, niso upoštevali.
The Applicants claimed that the decision to reject MET should be annulled because the Commission failed to make the MET determination within the three-month period set forth in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Vložniki so trdili, da je treba odločitev o zavrnitvi TGO razveljaviti, ker Komisija ni uspela sprejeti odločitve o TGO v treh mesecih v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
It is correct that the Commission did not make the MET determination within the three-month period following the initiation of the investigation.
Res je, da odločitve o TGO Komisija ni izvedla v treh mesecih od začetka preiskave.
However, this does not constitute a ground for the annulment of the decision to reject MET.
Kljub temu to ni podlaga za razveljavitev odločitve za zavrnitev TGO.
While Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation stipulates that the MET determination shall be made within three months following the initiation of the investigation, the provision does not stipulate that missing the three-month period has any specific consequences.
Medtem ko člen 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe določa, da je treba določitev TGO opraviti v treh mesecih od začetka preiskave, določba ne določa, da ima neupoštevanje trimesečnega obdobja kakršne koli posebne posledice.
In particular, the provision does not stipulate that if the Commission failed to decide within the three-month period on an exporter’s MET request, (i) the exporter will automatically get MET or (ii) that the institutions may no longer impose measures against the exporter.
Določba zlasti ne določa, da (i) bo izvozniku samodejno odobrena TGO ali (ii) da institucije ne smejo več uvajati ukrepov zoper izvoznika, če se Komisija ne uspe odločiti v roku treh mesecev.
Thus, it follows that the mere fact that the Commission did not respect the three-month period does not render the decision to reject MET unlawful.
Iz tega tako sledi, da zaradi samega dejstva, da Komisija ni upoštevala trimesečnega obdobja, odločitev o zavrnitvi TGO ni nezakonita.
The Moldovan exporting producer further claims that there has been discrimination in comparison with Ukrainian and Russian exporting producers in prior proceedings and that the Commission's assessment is based on political grounds.
Moldavski proizvajalec izvoznik nadalje trdi, da je obstajala diskriminacija v primerjavi z ukrajinskimi in ruskimi proizvajalci izvozniki pri predhodnih postopkih ter da ocena Komisije temelji na politični podlagi.
Additionally it claims that there are a number of errors due to lack of evidence or because the conclusions are insufficiently reasoned, and that the principle of sound administration was thus violated.
Poleg tega proizvajalec izvoznik trdi, da obstajajo številne napake zaradi pomanjkanja dokazov ali zaradi pomanjkljivo utemeljenih sklepnih ugotovitev ter da se je s tem kršilo načelo dobrega upravljanja.
The company does not detail specific reasons for such a breach.
Družba podrobno ne navaja posebnih razlogov za tako kršitev.
Concerning a claim of discrimination against the RM in regard to how MET assessments were made in previous cases against Ukraine and Russia, it must be stated that MET assessments are made on a case-by-case basis.
V zvezi s trditvijo o diskriminaciji RM, kar zadeva način, na katerega so bile opravljene ocene TGO v prejšnjih primerih za Ukrajino in Rusijo, je treba navesti, da se ocene TGO izvedejo za vsak primer posebej.
Decisions in past cases concerning these countries cannot be automatically applied to the current proceeding.
Odločitve v prejšnjih primerih, kar zadeva ti državi, se ne morejo samodejno uporabiti pri zdajšnjem postopku.
It must also be pointed out that neither Ukraine nor Russia is currently listed in Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation as non-market economy countries, therefore the current situation is not comparable with the Republic of Moldova.
Poudariti je treba tudi, da v členu 2(7) osnovne uredbe kot državi netržnega gospodarstva zdaj nista navedeni niti Ukrajina niti Rusija, zato trenutni položaj ni primerljiv z Republiko Moldavijo.
In light of the above, the allegation of discrimination in treatment between the RM and other former non-market economy countries is rejected.
Glede na navedeno se obtožba o diskriminaciji pri obravnavanju RM in drugih nekdanjih držav netržnega gospodarstva zavrne.
The Moldovan company contested the Commission's analysis of compliance with the five MET criteria.
Moldavska družba je nasprotovala analizi Komisije o skladnosti s petimi merili TGO.
Regarding criterion 1, the company argues that there is no State interference as, for the purpose of the proceeding, references to State cannot be made with reference to the TMR authorities, which are not recognised as a State.
V zvezi z merilom 1 družba trdi, da vmešavanje države ne obstaja, ker se za namene postopka sklicevanja na državo ne more uporabiti sklicevanje na organe PMR, ki niso priznani kot država.
However, it is considered that, for the purpose of this criterion, the reference to the State should be understood as the authorities effectively controlling the region, whether recognised or not, who have the capacity to interfere with the company's decision making processes.
Vendar se obravnava, da se za namene tega merila sklicevanje na državo razume kot učinkovito nadzorovanje regije, če je ta priznana ali ne, s strani organov, ki lahko vplivajo na postopke sprejemanja odločitev družbe.
The company also disagrees with the assessment of criterion 2, claiming the company has only one set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with IAS.
Družba se prav tako ne strinja z oceno merila 2, pri čemer trdi, da ima le eno zbirko osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se pregledujejo neodvisno v skladu z MRS.
However, it was found that the company had a first set of accounts which were prepared according to the so-called TMR accounting standards, which do not include a provision for bad debts, and which were not audited.
Kljub temu je bilo ugotovljeno, da je družba imela en sklop računov, ki so bili pripravljeni v skladu s tako imenovanimi računovodskimi standardi PMR, ki ne vključujejo določbe o slabih dolgovih in ki niso bili revidirani.
The company had a second set of accounts, which were consolidated with other related companies accounts and audited, allegedly in line with IAS.
Družba je imela še drugi sklop računov, ki so bili konsolidirani z računi drugih povezanih družb in revidirani, domnevno v skladu z MRS.
This second set of accounts received a qualified opinion from the auditors, who expressed reservations on the valuation of the assets by the company in 2003 and 2005.
Drugi sklop računov je prejel strokovno mnenje s strani revizorjev, ki so izrazili pridržke glede vrednotenja sredstev družbe v letih 2003 in 2005.
The exact reasons for those reservations could not be made sufficiently clear during the investigation.
Točnih razlogov za te pridržke v času preiskave ni bilo mogoče zadostno pojasniti.
The company later claimed that the reservations expressed by the auditors were not material, but did not provide evidence in this respect.
Družba je pozneje trdila, da pridržki revizorjev niso bili bistveni, vendar v zvezi s tem ni zagotovila dokazov.
Therefore, the above arguments of the company in respect of criterion 2 had to be dismissed.
Zato je treba argumente družbe v zvezi z merilom 2 zavrniti.
As for criterion 3, the company claimed that the privatisation process of the company was irrelevant for the purpose of pointing out possible distortions carried over from the non market economy system, as the company was subsequently re-sold at arm's length and fair market value.
V zvezi z merilom 3 je družba trdila, da je proces privatizacije družbe nepomemben pri opozarjanju na mogoča izkrivljanja, prenesena iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva, ker je bila družba posledično ponovno prodana po tržni ceni in pošteni tržni vrednosti.
However this could not be demonstrated since the re-sale of the companies holding MMZ shares could have included other assets and no properly documented evaluation of those operations was submitted.
Vendar tega ni bilo možno dokazati, ker bi v ponovno prodajo družb, lastnic delnic družbe MMZ, lahko bila vključena druga sredstva in ker ni bila predložena ustrezna dokumentacija v zvezi s temi transakcijami.
The company also claimed that, concerning barter trade practices, the amounts of barter trade found in the investigation were not material in view of this criterion.
Družba je v zvezi s prakso menjalne trgovine tudi trdila, da obseg menjalne trgovine, ki je bil ugotovljen v preiskavi, s stališča tega merila ni bil pomemben.
It is considered, however, that the materiality level of such practices is not a valid criterion for analysis, as the real value of the traded goods is only known to the parties involved on the barter trade operation.
Vendar se obravnava, da stopnja pomembnosti takih praks ni veljavno merilo za analizo, ker je dejanska vrednost prodajnega blaga poznana le strankam, vključenim v dejavnost menjalne trgovine.
Therefore the relevant argument is that such practices, which are typical of non-market economies, were found to have been regularly employed by the company.
Zato je relevanten argument, da se je ugotovilo, da je take prakse, značilne za netržna gospodarstva, družba redno uporabljala.
Thus the argument of the company had to be dismissed.
Zato je bilo treba argument družbe zavrniti.
Concerning a loan from a related company for which the Moldovan company could not, despite being requested to do so, produce on spot any evidence of repayment, the company claimed that this loan had been fully repaid.
V zvezi s posojilom od povezane družbe, za katerega moldavska družba na kraju samem ni mogla predložiti dokaza o odplačilu, čeprav se je od nje to zahtevalo, je družba trdila, da je bilo to posojilo v celoti odplačano.
The company subsequently submitted copies of documents allegedly as evidence of payment, but gave no explanation on why they were not made available on spot.
Družba je posledično predložila kopije dokumentov, domnevno kot dokaz o plačilu, vendar ni predložila nobene obrazložitve, zakaj dokumenti niso bili na voljo na kraju samem.
The fact stays that this evidence was not available during on spot verifications and that this type of submission cannot be verified at this stage of the proceeding.
Velja dejstvo, da ta dokaz ni bil na voljo med preverjanem na kraju samem in da te predložitve ni mogoče preveriti na tej stopnji postopka.
Therefore the claim of the company had to be dismissed.
Zato je bilo treba trditev družbe zavrniti.
Regarding criterion 4 the company claimed that the fact that the company was temporarily registered in the RM, and its exports took place via the RM customs should ensure that it complied with the RM legal framework.
V zvezi z merilom 4 je družba trdila, da dejstvo, da je bila družba začasno registrirana v RM in da je njen izvoz potekal prek carine RM, zagotavlja skladnost s pravnim okvirom RM.
It further argued that the fact that the accounts were audited showed that the applicable laws would be sufficient to ensure legal certainty and stability.
Nadalje je trdila, da dejstvo, da je bilo finančno poročilo revidirano, dokazuje, da veljavni zakoni zadostujejo za zagotovitev pravne varnosti in stabilnosti.
It should be noted, however, that neither the temporary registration of a company in the RM nor the auditing are conditional on the application of the RM’s legal framework, and that the current ownership of the company is not legally recognised in the RM.
Opozoriti je treba, da niti začasna registracija podjetja v RM niti nadzor nista odvisna od uporabe pravnega okvira RM ter da trenutno lastništvo družbe v RM ni pravno priznano.
Those claims were therefore dismissed.
Te trditve je bilo treba zato zavrniti.
Regarding criterion 5 the company claimed that exchange rate conversions in TMR roubles are carried out at market rate resulting from free sales and purchases of currencies.
V zvezi z merilom 5 je družba trdila, da se pretvorbe deviznih tečajev v rubljih PMR izvajajo po tržni stopnji, ki je posledica proste prodaje in nakupa valut.
However, the fact that the TMR currency is not recognised or traded internationally means that it cannot be considered to have a market value, but only a value which is administratively set by the so-called TMR authorities.
Vendar dejstvo, da valuta PMR ni priznana ali mednarodno tržena, pomeni, da se ne more obravnavati, kot da ima tržno vrednost, vendar ima le vrednost, ki jo upravno določijo tako imenovani organi PMR.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under the provisions of that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation to be granted IT.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se za države, ki jih zajemajo določbe navedenega člena, uvede dajatev na ravni države, če je to potrebno, razen v primerih, ko lahko družbe dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe za odobritev IO.
The Chinese and Moldovan exporting producers which did not meet the MET criteria (see recitals (28) to (33)) had also all claimed IT in the event that they were not granted MET.
Kitajski in moldavski proizvajalec izvoznik, ki nista izpolnjevala meril TGO (glej uvodne izjave (28) do (33) zgoraj), sta prav tako zaprosila za IO, če jima ne bi bila odobrena TGO.
On the basis of information available, it was found that the Chinese exporting producer met all the requirements for IT as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij je bilo ugotovljeno, da kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik izpolnjuje vse zahteve za IO iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
Regarding the sole Moldovan exporting producer, it was found that the Moldovan exporting producer did not meet the requirements for being granted IT as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, since it could not demonstrate that export prices, quantities and conditions were set without State interference, exchange rate conversions were carried out at market rates, or that State interference was not such as to permit circumvention of measures should individual exporters be given different rates of duty.
V zvezi z edinim moldavskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom je bilo ugotovljeno, da moldavski proizvajalec izvoznik ne izpolnjuje zahtev za odobritev IO iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe, ker ni mogel dokazati, da so se izvozne cene, količine in pogoji določevali brez vmešavanja države, da so se pretvorbe deviznih tečajev izvajale po tržnih stopnjah ali da vmešavanje države ni bilo tako, ki bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepom, če bi posamezni izvozniki imeli različne stopnje dajatev.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined for each exporting producer whether the domestic sales of the product concerned to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Community.
V skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe je Komisija najprej za vsakega posameznega proizvajalca izvoznika proučila, ali je bila domača prodaja zadevnega izdelka neodvisnim strankam reprezentativna, tj., ali je bil celotni obseg take prodaje enak ali večji od 5 % celotnega obsega ustreznega izvoza v Skupnost.
The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales, which were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community.
Komisija je nato ugotavljala, katere vrste izdelkov, ki so jih družbe z reprezentativno domačo prodajo prodajale na domačem trgu, so bile enake ali neposredno primerljive z vrstami, prodanimi za izvoz v Skupnost.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the investigation period represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Community.
Domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka se je štela za dovolj reprezentativno, če je obseg prodaje navedene vrste izdelka neodvisnim strankam na domačem trgu v obdobju preiskave predstavljal 5 % ali več celotnega obsega prodaje za izvoz v Skupnost primerljive vrste izdelka.
The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each product type sold domestically in representative quantities by each company in each exporting country could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je nato proučila, ali bi se za domačo prodajo vsake posamezne vrste izdelka, ki jo je na domačem trgu v reprezentativnih količinah prodala posamezna družba v posamezni državi izvoznici, lahko štelo, da se izvaja v običajnem poteku trgovine, v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers, of each exported product type, on the domestic market during the investigation period.
To se je izvedlo z določitvijo deleža dobičkonosne domače prodaje neodvisnim strankam vsake posamezne vrste izvoženega izdelka na domačem trgu med obdobjem preiskave.
This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.
Ta cena je bila izračunana kot tehtano povprečje cen celotne domače prodaje navedene vrste med OP, ne glede na to, ali je bila prodaja dobičkonosna ali ne.