natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe se normalna vrednost v protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom iz LRK določi v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 člena 2 za tiste proizvajalce, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, tj. kjer se izkaže, da pri proizvodni in prodaji podobnega izdelka veljajo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
These criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
Ta merila so povzeta tako:
business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,
poslovne odločitve se sprejemajo v skladu s tržnimi razmerami, brez večjega vmešavanja države, stroški pa odražajo tržne vrednosti,
firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes,
družbe imajo en jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se neodvisno pregledujejo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („MRS“) in se uporabljajo za vse namene,
there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,
ni večjih izkrivljanj, ki bi ostala iz nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva,
bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty,
stečajno pravo in pravo lastninskih razmerij zagotavljata stabilnost in pravno gotovost,
currency exchanges are carried out at market rates.
menjave valute se izvajajo po tržnih menjalnih tečajih.
In the course of the investigation the applicant submitted a number of MET claims for its related companies.
Med preiskavo je vložnik vložil številne zahtevke za TGO za svoje povezane družbe.
After analysis of the claims, the Commission identified four MET claims for verification of companies involved in the production and sale of the product concerned.
Po proučitvi teh zahtevkov je Komisija določila štiri družbe, vključene v proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka, da bi zahtevke za TGO preverila.
These companies are listed in recital 8 of this Regulation.
Te družbe so navedene v uvodni izjavi 8 te uredbe.
However, at a late stage of the investigation, it was found that the applicant was related to another producer and another exporter of the product concerned located in the PRC.
Vendar pa je bilo v poznejši fazi preiskave ugotovljeno, da je bil vložnik povezan še z nekim drugim proizvajalcem in nekim drugim izvoznikom zadevnega izdelka s sedežem v LRK.
These companies did not fill a separate MET claim form and thus it was not possible to assess the situation of the whole group within which the applicant is operating.
Ti družbi nista izpolnili ločenega obrazca zahtevka za TGO, zato ni bilo možno oceniti razmer celotne skupine, v okviru katere deluje vložnik.
It is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for MET.
Ustaljena praksa Komisije je preveriti, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO.
This is deemed to be necessary to avoid sales of a group of companies being channelled via one of the related companies in the group, should a preferential individual duty rate be granted to that company.
To je potrebno zato, da se skupini družb prepreči, da bi v primeru uvedbe ukrepov preusmerile svojo prodajo prek ene od povezanih družb v skupini, če bi bila tej družbi odobrena individualna dajatev.
Therefore, in cases where a subsidiary or any other related company is a producer and/or a seller of the product concerned, all such related companies have to provide a MET claim form to enable an examination of whether the criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are met.
Zato morajo v primeru, ko hčerinska družba ali katera koli druga povezana družba proizvaja in/ali prodaja zadevni izdelek, vse take povezane družbe predložiti obrazec zahtevka za TGO, da se lahko preveri, ali so izpolnjena merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The failure of the applicant to disclose the existence of these companies alone is sufficient to conclude that it cannot be established whether the group as a whole fulfils all the conditions for MET.
Dejstvo, da vložnik ni razkril obstoja teh družb, zadostuje za sklep, da ni možno ugotoviti, ali skupina kot celota izpolnjuje vse pogoje za TGO.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the investigation revealed that out of the four companies of the group that submitted MET claim forms, only one company fulfilled all the conditions for granting MET.
Vendarle je bilo s preiskavo ugotovljeno, da je samo ena od štirih družb skupine, ki so predložile obrazce zahtevka za TGO, izpolnjevala vse pogoje za odobritev TGO.
The remaining three companies did not fulfil the first three criteria mentioned in recital 13 above.
Ostale tri družbe niso izpolnjevale prvih treh meril iz uvodne izjave 13.
As regards the mother company, this company did not demonstrate that it was free from State interference.
Matična družba ni dokazala, da deluje brez vmešavanja države.
Firstly, the source of the capital of the company incorporated in 2001 could not be established and the accounts demonstrating the capital import could not be reconciled (criterion one).
Ni bilo možno ugotoviti vira kapitala družbe, registrirane leta 2001 in računovodskih kontov, ki izkazujejo dotok kapitala, ni bilo možno uskladiti (prvo merilo).
Secondly, this company did not substantiate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records prepared and audited in compliance with IAS.
Poleg tega ta družba ni dokazala, da ima en jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, pripravljenih in revidiranih v skladu z MRS.
In particular, the company did not have individual audited accounts.
Družba še zlasti ni imela revidiranih posameznih računovodskih evidenc.
It only had audited consolidated financial statements, specifically prepared upon request of a creditor.
Imela je samo revidirane konsolidirane računovodske izkaze, pripravljene posebej na zahtevo enega od upnikov.
Furthermore, the unaudited individual accounts also showed several breaches of the IAS, concerning fixed assets and depreciation, booking of certain assets and the revaluation of assets (criterion two).
Poleg tega je iz nerevidiranih posameznih računovodskih evidenc razvidnih tudi več kršitev MRS v zvezi z osnovnimi sredstvi in amortizacijo, knjiženjem nekaterih sredstev in prevrednotenjem sredstev (drugo merilo).
As regards the applicant, it did not demonstrate that it was free from State interference.
Vložnik ni dokazal, da deluje brez vmešavanja države.
In particular, its articles of association (AoA), which were communicated to the State authorities in order to obtain a business licence, contained restrictions for sales on the domestic market.
Njegov statut (Articles of Association – „AoA“), ki je bil predložen državnim organom za pridobitev dovoljenja za poslovanje, je vseboval omejitve glede prodaje na notranjem trgu.
In addition, the company was unable to provide a contract for the supply of energy (criterion one).
Poleg tega družbi ni uspelo predložiti pogodbe o oskrbi z energijo (prvo merilo).
Secondly, the company did not substantiate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records, which were prepared and audited in compliance with IAS (criterion two).
Ta družba prav tako ni dokazala, da ima en jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, pripravljenih in revidiranih v skladu z MRS (drugo merilo).
Finally, the applicant did not demonstrate that it was free from significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular because not all its initial assets were independently evaluated, and because it benefited from significant tax rebates (criterion three).
Vložnik tudi ni dokazal, da deluje brez večjih izkrivljanj, ki bi ostala od nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva, zlasti ker njegova osnovna sredstva niso bila v celoti neodvisno ocenjena in ker je bil upravičen do pomembnih davčnih olajšav (tretje merilo).
As regards the third company, it did not demonstrate that business decisions were made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and that its costs reflect market values (criterion one).
Tretja družba ni dokazala, da je poslovne odločitve sprejemala v skladu s tržnimi razmerami, brez večjega vmešavanja države, in da njeni stroški odražajo tržne vrednosti (prvo merilo).
Secondly, this company did not demonstrate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records, which were prepared and audited in compliance with IAS: several breaches of IAS were noted such as the late booking of revenues, or incorrect depreciation of fixed assets (criterion two).
Poleg tega ta družba ni dokazala, da ima en jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se pripravljajo in pregledujejo v skladu z MRS: ugotovljenih je bilo več kršitev MRS, kot so zamude pri knjiženju prihodkov ali nepravilna amortizacija osnovnih sredstev (drugo merilo).
Finally, the company did not demonstrate that it was free from significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular because the initial assets of the company could not be considered as independently evaluated (criterion three).
Vložnik tudi ni dokazal, da deluje brez večjih izkrivljanj, ki bi ostala od nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva, zlasti ker ni bilo možno šteti, da so bila njegova začetna sredstva v celoti neodvisno ocenjena(tretje merilo).
Based on the above facts and considerations, the applicant and the group as a whole, in which it operates, could not be granted MET.
Na podlagi zgornjih dejstev in premislekov se vložniku in skupini, v kateri vložnik deluje, kot celoti, ne more odobriti TGO.
The Community industry, the applicant and the authorities of the exporting country were given an opportunity to comment on the findings concerning MET.
Industrija Skupnosti, vložnik in organi države izvoznice so imeli možnost, da dajo pripombe na ugotovitve v zvezi s TGO.
Only the applicant submitted such comments.
Pripombe je vložil samo vložnik.
The applicant first argued that the two companies discovered at a late stage of the investigation as mentioned in recital 15 above did not have to submit MET claims.
Vložnik je najprej trdil, da družbama, odkritima v pozni fazi preiskave, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, ni bilo treba predložiti zahtevka za TGO.
According to the applicant, MET claims should be submitted by producers and traders of the product concerned during the IP.
Po mnenju vložnika morajo zahtevke za TGO vložiti družbe, ki zadevni izdelek proizvajajo ali prodajajo v OP.
The two companies in question were not involved in the production or sale of the product concerned during the IP and beyond because the related exporter was liquidated at the beginning of 2008, and the related producer was not fully operational during the IP since it has not obtained a production licence.
Zadevni družbi nista bili vključeni ne v proizvodnjo ne v prodajo zadevnega izdelka v OP ali po izteku OP, ker je bila povezana družba izvoznica likvidirana na začetku leta 2008, povezani proizvajalec pa v OP ni v celoti deloval, saj ni dobil dovoljenja za proizvodnjo.
In this regard it is recalled that the applicant was given an opportunity to and provided MET claims for most of its related companies.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je bila vložniku dana možnost vložitve zahtevkov za TGO in da je to možnost izkoristil v zvezi z večino svojih povezanih družb.
However, it failed to disclose the existence of these two companies within the deadlines set for this purpose, as explained in the following recitals 25 and 26.
Vendar pa ni razkril obstoja teh dveh družb v rokih za ta namen, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 25 in 26.
The existence of the alleged liquidated exporter was discovered by the Commission and confirmed by the applicant just before the verification visit in the PRC.
Domnevno likvidirano družbo izvoznico je odkrila Komisija, vložnik pa je njen obstoj potrdil malo pred preveritvenim obiskom v LRK.
The company did not file an MET claim and, in addition, the applicant, despite a request from the Commission, did not provide any accounting records and other relevant information to clarify the exact activities of this company during the IP.
Družba ni vložila zahtevka za TGO, poleg tega pa vložnik kljub zahtevi Komisije ni predložil računovodskih evidenc in drugih pomembnih informacij, ki bi omogočile natančno opredelitev dejavnosti te družbe v OP.
Therefore, the Commission was unable to establish that this company was not involved in the sale of the product concerned during the IP.
Zato Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti, ali ta družba dejansko ni bila vključena v prodajo zadevnega izdelka v OP.
As regards the related producer, its existence was communicated to the Commission during the verification visit in the PRC and thus, since this producer was located in another province, the Commission was unable to verify on the spot the exact nature of its operations and whether in fact the company had not started production of the product concerned.
Komisija je bila o obstoju povezanega proizvajalca obveščena med preveritvenim obiskom v LRK, ker pa je imel sedež v drugi provinci, Komisija ni mogla na kraju samem natančno preveriti značaja njegovih dejavnosti in ugotoviti, ali družba dejansko še ni začela proizvajati zadevnega izdelka.
It was found that although the company has not yet obtained a production licence, its business licence granted in 2007, namely during the IP, covers the manufacturing of the product concerned.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da družba sicer še ni dobila dovoljenja za proizvodnjo, vendar pa dovoljenje za poslovanje, ki ga ima od leta 2007, torej v OP, zajema proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
This related producer should therefore have submitted an MET claim.
Ta povezani proizvajalec bi torej moral vložiti zahtevek za TGO.
The failure to disclose the existence of these two companies and submit MET claims deprived the Commission of the possibility to verify the subsequently submitted information on their activities and to assess whether the group of companies satisfied the conditions for granting MET.
Ker obstoj teh dveh družb ni bil razkrit in zahtevka za TGO nista bila vložena, Komisija ni mogla preveriti naknadno predloženih informacij o dejavnosti družb in oceniti, ali je skupina družb izpolnjevala pogoje za odobritev TGO.
The applicant also claimed that the parent company should not have been included in the scope of the MET investigation given that it is neither a producer nor an exporter of the product concerned.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da matična družba ne bi smela biti vključena v obseg preiskave v zvezi s TGO, saj ni ne proizvajalka ne izvoznica zadevnega izdelka.
The parent company exercises control over its related companies, including their activities with regard to the product concerned.
Matična družba izvaja nadzor nad svojimi povezanimi družbami, vključno z njihovimi dejavnostmi v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom.
Thus any finding showing that the parent company is not following market economy principles has a direct impact on the whole group.
Zato vsaka ugotovitev v zvezi z neupoštevanjem načel tržnega gospodarstva s strani matične družbe neposredno vpliva na celotno skupino.
The investigation demonstrated that strong links existed between the mother company and its subsidiaries, in particular with the applicant and another cooperating company of the group involved in the product concerned.
S preiskavo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je obstajala tesna povezava med matično družbo in njenimi podružnicami, zlasti vložnikom in eno drugo sodelujočo družbo skupine, vključeno v proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
There were many transactions between the said companies.
Med navedenimi družbami je bilo izvedenih veliko transakcij.
In addition, the assets and overhead expenses were not clearly separated.
Poleg tega sredstva in splošni stroški poslovanja niso bili jasno ločeni.
Moreover, the parent company indicated during the verification visit its intention to produce magnesia bricks in the future, and there was nothing in its business licence to prevent this company from doing so.
Poleg tega je matična družba med preveritvenim obiskom povedala, da namerava v prihodnosti začeti proizvajati magnezitne opeke, kar ji njeno dovoljenje za poslovanje v celoti dovoljuje.
On this basis this claim had also to be rejected.
Na podlagi tega je bilo tudi to trditev treba zavrniti.
The applicant acknowledged that the company mentioned in recital 20 above does not fulfil all MET criteria, but claimed that it should no longer be considered as a producer since it was currently renting its production facilities to a related producer.
Vložnik je priznal, da družba iz uvodne izjave 20 ne izpolnjuje vseh meril TGO, hkrati pa trdil, da se ta družba ne sme več šteti za proizvajalko, saj trenutno oddaja svoje proizvodne zmogljivosti povezanemu proizvajalcu.
In this respect it was found that this company has the capability to resume production on its own right at any time in the future.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da ima ta družba zmogljivosti, da kadar koli v prihodnosti ponovno vzpostavi proizvodnjo.
The applicant made further claims and brought new elements allegedly demonstrating that the company mentioned in recital 19 above meets all the MET criteria.
Vložnik je navedel še druge trditve in predložil nove informacije, ki naj bi dokazovale, da družba iz uvodne izjave 19 izpolnjuje vsa merila TGO.
These claims are described and discussed below.
Te trditve so opisane in proučene v nadaljevanju.
As regards criterion one, the applicant further argued that any restriction in the AoA is purely a private agreement between shareholders in which the State did not interfere.
Glede prvega merila je vložnik trdil tudi, da vse omejitve iz statuta temeljijo na popolnoma zasebnem dogovoru med delničarji brez vmešavanja države.
The applicant also claimed that the Chinese Contract Law did not impose any obligation to sign a written contract for energy supply.
Vložnik je prav tako trdil, da po kitajskem pogodbenem pravu pisne pogodbe za oskrbo z energijo niso potrebne.
In this regard, it is noted that the Chinese Company Law provides that the AoA of companies are binding on the company, shareholders, directors, supervisors and senior management.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da so v skladu s kitajskim pogodbenim pravom statuti družb zavezujoči za družbo, delničarje, direktorje, nadzornike in vodstveno osebje.
Moreover, the AoA and any changes thereof are required to be registered with the State authorities.
Poleg tega je treba statut in vsako spremembo v zvezi z njim prijaviti pri državnih organih.
Contrary to the claim of the applicant, it was also found that the Chinese Contract Law makes clear reference to contracts for supply and use of energy and contains clear provisions on the content of such contracts.
V nasprotju s trditvijo vložnika je bilo tudi ugotovljeno, da so v kitajskem pogodbenem pravu jasno navedene pogodbe za oskrbo z energijo in uporabo energije, določbe v zvezi z njihovo vsebino pa natančno opredeljene.
On this basis, the claims concerning criterion one were rejected.
Na podlagi tega je bilo treba trditve v zvezi s prvim merilom zavrniti.
As regards criterion two, the applicant provided documents alleging that shortcomings found in the accounts, in particular for a transaction between related companies, were corrected later in April 2008, and argued that criterion two was thus fulfilled.
V zvezi z drugim merilom je vložnik predložil dokumente, ki naj bi dokazovali, da so bile pomanjkljivosti glede računovodskih evidenc, zlasti v zvezi s transakcijami med povezanimi družbami, aprila 2008 odpravljene, in trdil, da je drugo merilo torej izpolnjeno.
In this respect, it is noted that any alleged remedy applied in 2008 cannot remedy the fact that the accounts of the applicant which were provided in the claim form were not reliable as indicated in recital 19 above.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da domnevne izboljšave iz leta 2008 ne spremenijo dejstva, da, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 19, računovodske evidence vložnika, predložene skupaj z obrazcem za zahtevek, niso zanesljive.
On this basis, this claim had to be rejected.
Na podlagi tega je bilo treba to trditev zavrniti.
As regards criterion three, the applicant claimed that the capital verification report provided in its MET claim should be sufficient in itself to certify the evaluation of its assets.
V zvezi s tretjim merilom je vložnik trdil, da bi poročilo o preverjanju kapitala, ki ga je predložil k svojemu zahtevku za TGO, moralo samo po sebi zadostovati za oceno njegovih sredstev.
The applicant also claimed that the tax rebates should not have been taken into account in the framework of the present anti-dumping investigation as this issue is relevant only for anti-subsidy investigations.
Trdil je tudi, da v okviru trenutne protidampinške preiskave davčne olajšave ne bi smele biti upoštevane, saj so pomembne le pri protisubvencijskih preiskavah.
It is noted that the investigation found that the capital verification report was found to be erroneous and thus cannot be considered as a reliable independent basis for the evaluation of the assets.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bilo s preiskavo ugotovljeno, da je bilo poročilo o preverjanju kapitala napačno in se zato ne more šteti za zanesljivo neodvisno podlago za oceno sredstev.
Concerning the tax rebates obtained by the applicant, it is considered that it distorts significantly the financial situation of the company and indeed has an impact on the third MET criterion.
V zvezi z davčnimi olajšavami, do katerih je bil upravičen vložnik, se šteje, da znatno izkrivljajo finančni položaj družbe in da zato vplivajo na tretje merilo TGO.
Therefore, these claims concerning criterion three had to be rejected.
Navedene trditve v zvezi s tretjim merilom je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
On the basis of the above, the Commission maintained its findings and conclusions concerning the criteria one to three.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Komisija svojih ugotovitev ter sklepnih ugotovitev v zvezi s prvim, drugim in tretjim merilom ni spremenila.
It is thus confirmed that the applicant and the group in which it operates cannot be granted MET.
Zato se potrjuje, da se vložniku in skupini, v okviru katere ta deluje, ne more odobriti TGO.
Further to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment (IT) set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe se za države, ki jih zajema navedeni člen, uvede dajatev na ravni države, če je to potrebno, razen v primerih, ko družbe dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila za individualno obravnavo (IO) iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,
izvozne cene in obseg izvoza ter prodajni pogoji se določajo prosto,
the majority of the shares belong to private persons, and it must be demonstrated that the company is sufficiently independent from State interference,
večina deležev je v lasti zasebnih oseb in mora se dokazati zadostna raven neodvisnosti družbe od vmešavanja države,
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate,
pretvorbe menjalnega tečaja se opravljajo po tržnih menjalnih tečajih,
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
država se ne vmešava v takšni meri, da bi omogočila izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.