natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the absence of any other comments in respect of comparison, the content of recitals 46 and 47 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb v zvezi s primerjavo, se vsebina uvodnih izjav 46 in 47 začasne uredbe potrdi.
In the absence of any comments concerning the dumping margin calculation, and subject to the changes mentioned at recitals 30 and 31, the content of recitals 48 to 51 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih pripomb v zvezi z izračunom stopnje dampinga in pod pogojem, da se upoštevajo spremembe iz uvodnih izjav 30 in 31, se vsebina uvodnih izjav od 48 do 51 začasne uredbe potrdi.
The amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is as follows:
Dokončno določena stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek neto cene CIF franko meja Skupnosti pred carinjenjem, znaša:
Residual
Preostala stopnja
CISA claimed that, according to information released by a specialised agency (Steel Business Briefing), there were at least 40 Community producers in 2007 of the like product in the EU-27 with a production of around 5,8 million tonnes and this would contradict the relevant data contained in the provisional Regulation.
CISA je trdila, da je bilo po informacijah specializirane agencije - Steel Business Briefing leta 2007 v EU-27 najmanj 40 proizvajalcev podobnega izdelka, njihova proizvodnja pa je znašala okoli 5,8 milijonov ton, kar je v nasprotju z ustreznimi podatki iz začasne uredbe.
CISA also claimed that, according to information released by the World Steel Association, Community consumption was of around 4,6 million tonnes in 2007, i.e. far higher than what was reported in recital 57 of the provisional Regulation.
CISA je trdila tudi, da je bila po informacijah Svetovnega združenja za jeklo (World Steel Association) potrošnja Skupnosti leta 2007 okoli 4,6 milijonov ton, tj. veliko več, kot je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 57 začasne uredbe.
A Chinese exporting producer also made similar claims.
Kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je prav tako trdil podobno.
The examination of the information provided showed that the figures reported refer to all seamless pipes and tubes and not to the like product as defined in the provisional Regulation and in recitals 10 to 17 above, and include other products such as large pipes and tubes (i.e. with a diameter exceeding 406,4 mm) and stainless steel pipes and tubes.
Pregled predloženih informacij je pokazal, da se sporočene številke nanašajo na vse brezšivne cevi in ne na podoben izdelek, kot je določen v začasni uredbi in uvodnih izjavah od 10 do 17, ter vključujejo druge izdelke, kot so široke cevi (tj. s premerom več kot 406,4 mm) in nerjavne cevi iz jekla.
This explains the discrepancy between the information mentioned in recital 35 above and that contained in the provisional Regulation.
Zaradi tega je prišlo do razlike med informacijami iz uvodne izjave 35 in tistimi iz začasne uredbe.
It should also be noted that names and locations of all known Community producers of the product concerned were contained in the non-confidential version of the complaint.
Treba je tudi opozoriti, da so imena in kraji vseh znanih proizvajalcev Skupnosti zadevnega izdelka navedeni v nezaupni različici pritožbe.
If CISA had considered that there were any other producers of the product concerned in the EU, it should have provided in due course sufficient evidence to identify them, so that any such company would also have been considered.
Če bi CISA menila, da so v EU drugi proizvajalci zadevnega izdelka, bi morala pravočasno zagotoviti zadostne dokaze za njihovo identifikacijo, zato da bi se upoštevale vse takšne družbe.
The claims mentioned above are therefore dismissed and the content of recitals 53 to 58 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Navedene trditve se zato zavrnejo in vsebina uvodnih izjav od 53 do 58 začasne uredbe se potrdi.
Volume, market share of the imports concerned and import prices
Obseg, tržni delež zadevnega uvoza in uvozne cene
Following comments submitted by CISA, it is clarified that recital 60 of the provisional Regulation should be intended as meaning that the OCTG and power generation market segments each represented less than 5 % of total imports from the PRC.
Po pripombah, ki jih je predložila CISA, je bilo pojasnjeno, da se mora uvodna izjava 60 začasne uredbe razumeti v smislu, da so cevni material za naftovode in tržni segmenti proizvodnje električne energije predstavljali vsak manj kot 5 % celotnega uvoza iz LRK.
In the absence of any claims or other comments, recitals 59 to 63 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo nobenih trditev ali drugih pripomb, se uvodne izjave od 59 do 63 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
An exporting producer, three Community producers and the complainant submitted comments relating to the calculation of the undercutting and injury margins.
Proizvajalec izvoznik, trije proizvajalci Skupnosti in pritožnik so predložili pripombe v zvezi z izračunom nelojalnega nižanja cen in stopnje škode.
These comments were analysed and, where appropriate, the calculations were amended.
Te pripombe so bile analizirane in izračuni so bili po potrebi spremenjeni.
One exporting producer claimed that the adjustments made to compare on a fair basis the prices of the Chinese imports and the prices of the corresponding product types sold by the Community industry were not adequate, since they did not include an amount for the selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit of an independent importer.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da prilagoditve, narejene za pošteno primerjavo cen kitajskega uvoza in cen ustreznih vrst izdelka, ki jih prodaja industrija Skupnosti, niso ustrezne, saj ne vključujejo zneskov za stroške prodaje, administrativne in druge stroške (v nadaljnjem besedilu: stroški PSA) ter za dobiček neodvisnega uvoznika.
On the contrary, the complainant claimed that the level of these adjustments was excessively high.
Nasprotno pa je pritožnik trdil, da je stopnja teh prilagoditev čezmerno visoka.
As for the claim of the exporting producer, it was found that often Chinese exporting producers and Community producers were selling to the same customers.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki in proizvajalci Skupnosti pogosto prodajali istim strankam.
Thus, a further adjustment to import prices was not justified.
Zato nadaljnja prilagoditev uvoznih cen ni bila upravičena.
After examination of the evidence provided, it was concluded that the claims should be dismissed and the two parties were informed of the reasons therefor.
Po proučitvi zagotovljenih dokazov je bilo sklenjeno, da se morajo trditve zavreči, obe stranki pa sta bili obveščeni o vzrokih.
The complainant claimed that the calculation of the differences in level of trade was incorrect since Chinese exporting producers also directly sold to users and that for such sales no level of trade adjustment is warranted.
Pritožnik je trdil, da izračun razlik v ravni trgovanja ni bil pravilen, saj so kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki prodajali neposredno uporabnikom, ter da za to prodajo prilagoditev ravni trgovanja ni bila upravičena.
This claim was found to be correct for some Chinese exporting producers and the level of trade adjustment was accordingly revised.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bila ta trditev pravilna za nekatere kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, zato je bila prilagoditev ravni trgovanja ustrezno popravljena.
Furthermore, the exporting producer mentioned in recital 40 above argued that, because of significant differences in sales volumes between its own imports and the sales of the Community industry, the difference in level of trade should not be established by simply comparing the respective percentage of sales to users and suggested another formula for the calculation of the revised level of trade adjustment.
Poleg tega je proizvajalec izvoznik iz uvodne izjave 40 trdil, da zaradi znatnih razlik v obsegu prodaje med lastnim uvozom in prodajo industrije Skupnosti razlika v ravni trgovanja ne bi smela biti določena samo s primerjavo ustreznih odstotkov prodaje uporabnikom, ter predlagal drugačen način izračuna popravljene prilagoditve ravni trgovanja.
However, the suggested formula was not considered appropriate since it would distort the result.
Vendar se predlagani način ni štel za primernega, ker bi bil rezultat izkrivljen.
Therefore, the claim was rejected.
Ta trditev je bila torej zavrnjena.
On the basis of the above, the methodology described in recital 64 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed and the undercutting margin calculated as explained in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation is established at 29 %.
Na podlagi navedenega se metodologija iz uvodne izjave 64 začasne uredbe potrdi in stopnja nelojalnega nižanja cen, izračunana, kakor je opisano v uvodni izjavi 65 začasne uredbe, se določi v višini 29 %.
CISA claimed that a number of sampled Community producers had not submitted completed replies, so that the representativeness of the sample would be impaired because of the low level of cooperation.
CISA je trdila, da številni vzorčeni proizvajalci Skupnosti niso predložili izpolnjenih vprašalnikov, kar naj bi zmanjšalo reprezentativnost vzorca zaradi nizke stopnje sodelovanja.
It should be pointed out that, apart from the company indicated at point (ii) of recital 66 of the provisional Regulation, which only submitted partial information, all other companies in the sample have provided by the definitive stage of the investigation all the information requested.
Treba je poudariti, da razen družbe iz točke (ii) uvodne izjave 66 začasne uredbe, ki je predložila delne informacije, so vse druge vzorčene družbe do končne faze zagotovile vse zahtevane informacije.
Even when excluding the sole company that had only provided partial information, the representativeness of the sample would in any case remain at about 60 % of the total Community production.
Čeprav se izključi edina družba, ki je zagotovila le delne informacije, bi reprezentativnost vzorca v vsakem primeru predstavljala 60 % celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti.
CISA also claimed that, contrary to what is stated in recital 86 of the provisional Regulation, one major Community producer group had made, after the IP, substantial investments in expanding its production capacity for tubes in the nuclear power sector.
CISA je v nasprotju z navedenim v uvodni izjavi 86 začasne uredbe tudi trdila, da je ena večja skupina proizvajalcev Skupnosti po OP veliko investirala v razširitev proizvodne zmogljivosti za cevi v jedrskem sektorju.
This information was verified and it was found that the abovementioned investments were made in order to increase the production capacity for other products (stainless steel or welded pipes and tubes) than the like product.
Ta informacija je bila preverjena in ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bile navedene naložbe namenjene povečanju proizvodne zmogljivosti za druge izdelke (nerjavno jeklo ali varjene cevi) razen podobnih izdelkov.
CISA and a Chinese exporting producer claimed that recital 87 of the provisional Regulation was incorrect in saying that the Community industry was still recovering from the past effect of dumping since there were at least three Romanian companies supporting the complaint, which were until mid 2006 themselves subject to anti-dumping measures.
CISA in en kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik sta trdila, da uvodna izjava 78 začasne uredbe ni bila pravilna glede dejstva, da industrija Skupnosti še vedno okreva od preteklih učinkov dampinga, saj so vsaj tri romunske družbe, ki so podpirale pritožbo, do srede leta 2006 same bile predmet protidampinških ukrepov.
However, the statements in recital 87 clearly refer to the Community industry considered as a whole and not to individual companies.
Vendar se ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 87 nedvoumno nanašajo na industrijo Skupnosti kot na celoto in ne na posamezne družbe.
It is therefore normal that the situation of individual companies may differ one from another, without the general finding for the Community industry being put in question.
Zato je normalno, da je stanje posameznih družb lahko različno, ne da bi bila splošna ugotovitev za industrijo Skupnosti pri tem vprašljiva.
In the absence of any other claims or comments, recitals 66 to 87 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo nobenih trditev ali pripomb, se uvodne izjave od 66 do 87 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Mofcom, CISA and two Chinese exporting producers claimed that the Community industry was not in a vulnerable state at the end of the investigation period, particularly in view of its recent high levels of profit.
MOFCOM, CISA in dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika so trdili, da industrija Skupnosti na koncu obdobja preiskave ni bila ogrožena, zlasti glede na nedavne visoke stopnje dobička.
The reasons why the Community industry was considered to be in a vulnerable situation at the end of the IP are detailed in recital 89 of the provisional Regulation.
Vzroki, zakaj se je štelo, da je bila industrija Skupnosti na koncu OP ogrožena, so podrobno razloženi v uvodni izjavi 89 začasne uredbe.
It was recognised therein that the injury suffered during the IP was not material, but it was also explained that, given the important share of dumped imports in the Community market, the Community industry was exposed to the injurious effects of such dumped imports, in case of significant changes in the overall market situation.
S tem je bilo potrjeno, da škoda, utrpljena med OP, ni bila znatna, obenem pa je bilo razloženo, da je industrija Skupnosti glede na velik delež dampinškega uvoza na trg Skupnosti izpostavljena škodljivim učinkom tega dampinškega uvoza, če bi se spremenil celoten položaj trga.
In this respect, it should be borne in mind that the Community industry could benefit only partially from the substantial increase in consumption and that its market share had declined by five percentage points during the period considered, as indicated in recital 88 of the provisional Regulation.
Zato je treba upoštevati, da ima industrija Skupnosti lahko le delne koristi od znatnega povečanja potrošnje in da se je njen tržni delež zmanjšal za 5 odstotnih točk med obravnavanim obdobjem, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 88 začasne uredbe.
Moreover, the fact that an industry experiences good levels of profit during an exceptionally favourable period of very high market demand does not necessarily imply that it is structurally in a solid economic and financial situation, particularly if during previous periods the same industry was posting extremely low profits or even losses.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da ima neka industrija visoko stopnjo dobička v izjemno ugodnem obdobju velikega tržnega povpraševanja, ne pomeni nujno, da je v dobrem gospodarskem in finančnem položaju, zlasti če je v predhodnih obdobjih ista industrija objavila izredno nizek dobiček ali celo izgubo.
As already mentioned in recital 86 of the provisional Regulation, the past poor economic performance caused by the existence of dumping practices had made it impossible to maintain the level of investments appropriate to ensure the viability of the Community industry in the long term in such a highly capital intensive manufacturing sector.
Kakor je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 86 začasne uredbe, je bilo zaradi nekdanje nizke gospodarske produktivnosti ki so jo povzročile dampinške prakse, nemogoče obdržati primerno raven naložb, ki bi zagotovila dolgoročen obstoj industrije Skupnosti v takšnem izjemno kapitalsko intenzivnem proizvodnem sektorju.
Finally, the EC market was again characterised at the end of the IP by the presence of a significant proportion of very low-priced dumped imports.
Za trg Skupnosti ES je bila na koncu OP spet značilna prisotnost znatnega deleža izredno poceni dampinškega uvoza.
This market situation was potentially very dangerous since already in past years, at times when the level of demand was at normal levels, a similar market situation (which was analysed in Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 [6] had caused significant injury to the Community industry.
Te tržne razmere so predstavljale potencialno nevarnost, saj so zadnjih nekaj let, ko je bila stopnja povpraševanja normalna, podobne tržne razmere (analizirane v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 954/2006 [6] povzročile znatno škodo industriji Skupnosti.
One Chinese exporting producer also claimed that recital 89 of the provisional Regulation did not show that the change in market situations referred to therein was ‘clearly foreseen and imminent’, as requested by the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (ADA).
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi trdil, da uvodna izjava 89 začasne uredbe ni pokazala, da je sprememba v tržnih razmerah, ki je tam navedena, „jasno predvidena in neposredna“, kakor to zahteva Protidampinški sporazum STO.
A change in the market situation was foreseeable because consumption cannot normally remain at exceptionally high levels for a long period.
Sprememba tržnih razmer je bila predvidljiva, saj potrošnja običajno ne more dolgo ostati na izjemno visoki ravni.
The analysis carried out in recitals 90 to 126 of the provisional Regulation shows a clear deterioration which in fact took place over a certain period of time.
Analiza iz uvodnih izjav od 90 do 126 začasne uredbe kaže na očitno poslabšanje, ki je nastalo postopoma.
The fact that a certain period of time is necessary for a number of elements and indicators to evolve from positive to negative values is not inconsistent with the fact that, in the light of existing trends, such negative effects are already clearly foreseeable.
Dejstvo, da je za številne elemente in kazalnike potrebno določeno obdobje, da se iz pozitivnih vrednosti spremenijo v negativne, ni v nasprotju z dejstvom, da so glede na obstoječa gibanja takšni negativni učinki že zdaj jasno predvideni.
In the absence of any other claim or comments, the conclusion on injury laid down in recitals 88 and 89 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih zahtev ali pripomb, se sklepna ugotovitev iz uvodnih izjav 88 do 89 začasne uredbe potrdi.
Likely developments of Community consumption, imports from the country concerned and the situation of the Community industry after the investigation period
Verjetni razvoj potrošnje Skupnosti, uvoz iz zadevne države in položaj industrije Skupnosti po obdobju preiskave
Analysis carried out after provisional measures
Analiza, izvedena po začasnih ukrepih
For the sake of completeness the figures relating to the period between the end of the IP and March 2009 (the post-IP period) are reported below.
Številke v zvezi s obdobjem med koncem OP in marcem 2009 (obdobje po OP) so zaradi popolnosti podatkov navedene spodaj.
Since these figures relate to a period of 9 months only, no index is given for volumes.
Ker se te številke nanašajo le na devetmesečno obdobje, indeksi za obseg niso navedeni.
After the IP, the Community consumption started to decrease substantially and at a faster pace than what was indicated in recital 91 of the provisional Regulation.
Po OP se je potrošnja Skupnosti začela manjšati in sicer hitreje, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 91 začasne uredbe.
In fact, the Community market has already contracted by almost 30 % [7] in the period between the end of the IP and March 2009.
Trg Skupnosti se je namreč v obdobju med koncem OP in marcem 2009 skrčil že za skoraj 30 % [7].
Post-IP period
Obdobje po OP
Community Consumption
Poraba Skupnosti
At the same time, imports from the PRC also decreased significantly but, given the steeper decrease of Community consumption, the market share of these imports has increased to around 18 %.
Obenem se je uvoz iz LRK znatno zmanjšal, tržni delež tega uvoza pa se je glede na hitro zmanjšanje potrošnje Skupnosti povečal na približno 18 %.
The prices of Chinese imports increased in line with what was indicated in recital 98 of the provisional Regulation.
Cene kitajskega uvoza so se zvišale skladno z navedenim v uvodni izjavi 98 začasne uredbe.
Imports Volume
Obseg uvoza
As for prices, after having increased in the second half of 2008, they decreased in the first quarter of 2009, though remaining at values higher than during the IP.
Potem ko so se cene v drugi polovici leta 2008 zvišale, so se v prvem četrtletju leta 2009 znižale, čeprav so vrednosti ostale višje kot med OP.
EC sales Volume
Obseg prodaje ES
Sampled Community Producers
Vzorčeni proizvajalci Skupnosti
EC Sales Price
Prodajna cena ES
Finally, the profitability of the Community industry has decreased substantially and at a quicker pace than indicated in recital 110 of the provisional Regulation, so that it was negative (– 0,8 %) in the first quarter of 2009.
Dobičkonosnost industrije Skupnosti se je znatno zmanjšala in sicer hitreje, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 110 začasne uredbe, ter je bila zato v prvem četrtletju leta 2009 negativna (– 0,8 %).
In conclusion, the information additionally collected and verified at the definitive stage of the investigation confirms the analysis carried out in recitals 90 to 112 of the provisional Regulation.
Informacije, ki so bile naknadno zbrane in preverjene v končni fazi preiskave, potrjujejo analizo iz uvodnih izjav od 90 do 112 začasne uredbe.
Comments submitted by parties
Pripombe, ki so jih predložile stranke
One exporting producer claimed that the investigation of injury, contrary to that of dumping, had been extended beyond the IP, by basing the analysis also on information and data for the period after June 2008.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je preiskava škode, v nasprotju s preiskavo dampinga, trajala še po obdobju OP, pri čemer je analiza temeljila tudi na informacijah in podatkih za obdobje po juniju 2008.
It is first of all recalled that the IP and the period considered are the basis on which the assessment of threat of injury was made in the provisional Regulation.
Najprej je treba spomniti, da sta OP in obravnavano obdobje osnova, na podlagi katere se je bila v začasni uredbi določila ocena nevarnosti škode.
However, in a threat of injury case, the injury found in the investigation period cannot — by definition — be material, otherwise that investigation would qualify as an investigation based on actual material injury.
Vendar škoda, ugotovljena v obdobju preiskave, v primeru nevarnosti škode po definiciji ne more biti znatna, saj bi se preiskava v tem primeru štela kot preiskava, ki temelji na dejanski znatni škodi.
The investigating authority therefore needs to ascertain whether, although the injury was not material during the IP, the factors referred to in Article 3(9) of the basic Regulation lead to the conclusion that there is a threat of material injury.
Preiskovalni organ mora zato ugotoviti, ali je bilo, kljub temu, da škoda med OP ni bila znatna, mogoče sklepati, da so dejavniki iz člena 3(9) osnovne uredbe privedli do nevarnosti škode.
Therefore, the investigating authority is entitled to verify that the events taking place after the end of the IP do confirm the findings of threat of injury reached at the provisional stage.
Zato preiskovalni organ upravičeno lahko preveri, ali dogodki po koncu OP potrjujejo ugotovitve iz začasne faze o nevarnosti škode.
Mofcom, CISA and one Chinese exporting producer considered that the source of the information used was not made clear in recital 91 of the provisional Regulation and that the forecasts and other information submitted by Community producers or the complainant and referred to in recitals 99, 101 and 108 of the provisional Regulation were not from an objective source of information.
MOFCOM, CISA in en kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik so menili, da vir uporabljenih informacij v uvodni izjavi 91 začasne uredbe ni bil jasno naveden ter da napovedi in druge informacije, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci Skupnosti ali pritožnik, ki so navedene v uvodnih izjavah 99, 101 in 108 začasne uredbe, ne izvirajo iz nepristranskega vira informacij.