natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The hand pallet trucks are only designed to raise a load, by pumping the tiller, to a height sufficient for transporting and do not have any other additional functions or uses such as for example (i) to move and to lift the loads in order to place them higher or assist in storage of loads (highlifters), (ii) to stack one pallet above the other (stackers), (iii) to lift the load to a working level (scissorlifts) or (iv) to lift and to weigh the loads (weighing trucks).
Ročni vozički za premeščanje palet imajo le eno funkcijo, in sicer da omogočijo dvigovanje tovora z zamahovanjem krmila do višine, primerne za prevažanje, in nimajo nobenih drugih dodatnih funkcij ali uporab, kot na primer (i) za premeščanje ali dvigovanje tovora, da bi se ga postavilo više, ali za pomoč pri skladiščenju tovora (dvigalne naprave), (ii) za nakladanje ene palete na drugo (nakladalniki), (iii) za dvigovanje tovora na delovno površino (škarjasta dvigala) ali (iv) za dvigovanje in tehtanje tovora (vozički za tehtanje).
The current review has shown that the HPT produced in the PRC by Yale and sold on the Chinese market have the same basic physical characteristics and the same uses as those exported to the Community.
Sedanji pregled je pokazal, da imajo RVP, ki jih družba Yale proizvaja v LRK in so prodani na kitajskem trgu, enake osnovne fizikalne lastnosti in enako uporabo kot tisti, ki so izvoženi v Skupnost.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which have shown that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is demonstrated by such exporting producers 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 v protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz LRK normalna vrednost določi v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 navedenega člena za tiste proizvajalce, ki so dokazali, da izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, tj. če so takšni proizvajalci izvozniki dokazali, da v zvezi z njihovo proizvodnjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka veljajo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
Merila so na kratko in le zaradi lažjega sklicevanja povzeta takole:
business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;
poslovne odločitve in stroški se oblikujejo v skladu s tržnimi razmerami, brez občutnega vmešavanja države, pri čemer stroški odražajo tržne vrednosti;
firms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited, in line with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes;
družbe imajo en sam jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se neodvisno pregledujejo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („MRS“) in uporabljajo za vse namene;
Yale requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadlines.
Družba Yale je v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe zahtevala obrazec zahtevka za TGO za proizvajalce izvoznike v danih rokih.
The Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified the information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the company in question.
Komisija je poiskala vse potrebne informacije in preverila vse informacije iz zahtevka za TGO v prostorih zadevne družbe.
Yale did not show that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Družba Yale ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The company did not fulfil criteria 1 and 2.
Družba ni izpolnjevala meril 1 in 2.
As far as criterion 1 is concerned it was established on the spot that the company’s Articles of Association (AoA) contained explicit domestic sales restrictions, namely the company was obliged to sell 100 % of its products to overseas markets.
V zvezi z merilom 1 je bilo na kraju samem ugotovljeno, da statut družbe vsebuje izrecne omejitve v zvezi z domačo prodajo, zlasti obvezo, da mora družba 100 % svojih izdelkov prodati na trge drugih celin.
Yale argued that those restrictions never played any role in substance as it had some minor domestic sales during the RIP.
Družba Yale je trdila, da navedene omejitve nikoli niso igrale pomembne vloge, saj je med OPP imela domačo prodajo, čeprav majhno.
Nevertheless, the company was not in a position to present concrete evidence demonstrating that it was de facto and de jure not subject to the aforesaid restriction stipulated by its AoA.
Vendar družbi ni uspelo predložiti konkretnih dokazov, da de facto in de jure ni podvržena zgoraj omenjenim omejitvam na podlagi svojega statuta.
Furthermore, evidence of State influence on the company’s decisions with regard to export sales was established on spot.
Poleg tega so bili na kraju samem zbrani dokazi za vpliv države na odločitve družbe v zvezi z izvozom.
It was revealed that since 2002 Yale benefits from a 50 % tax cut on its income tax rate.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je družba Yale od leta 2002 upravičena do 50-odstotnega znižanja davka od dobička.
This tax cut is derived from the relevant implementing rules of the income tax law for enterprises with foreign investment and foreign enterprises.
To znižanje davka temelji na ustreznih izvedbenih določbah zakona o davku od dobička podjetij s tujimi naložbami in tujih podjetij.
The rules stipulate that export oriented foreign invested enterprises, like Yale, with export sales that amount to 70 % or more of the total sales for the year are entitled to 50 % tax cuts after the period of enterprise income tax reductions has expired.
V skladu s temi pravili so podjetja s tujimi naložbami, usmerjena v izvoz, kot je družba Yale, katerih izvoz predstavlja 70 % ali več celotne letne prodaje, upravičena do 50-odstotnega znižanja, potem ko poteče obdobje znižanja davkov od dobička podjetja.
It can be seen from the above that Yale does not take its business decisions with respect to its export sales only in the light of market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Iz zgoraj navedenega je možno sklepati, da družba Yale ne sprejema svojih poslovnih odločitev glede izvoza zgolj glede na stanje trga, ki odraža gibanje ponudbe in povpraševanja.
The company is subject to significant State influence consisting of the award of certain tax benefits on the explicit condition that it takes certain business decisions with respect to its domestic and export sales.
Družba je podvržena močnemu vplivu države v obliki nekaterih davčnih koristi pod izrecnim pogojem, da svoje poslovne odločitve sprejema glede na domačo prodajo in izvoz.
Account taken of all the above, it was consequently concluded that the company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 1.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je bilo zato sklenjeno, da družba ni dokazala izpolnjevanja merila 1.
As far as criterion 2 is concerned it was established on the spot that fundamental International Accounting Standards principles were disregarded (i.e. accrual principle, exchange rates conversion policies, lack of fair representation of the financial position and use of accounts prepared only for the purposes of the investigation) both in the accounts and in their audit, which put into question the reliability of the company’s accounts.
V zvezi z merilom 2 je bilo na kraju samem ugotovljeno, da niti v finančnem poročilu niti v reviziji poročila niso bila upoštevana temeljna načela mednarodnih računovodskih standardov (tj. obračunsko načelo, politike pretvorb menjalnih tečajev, nepošteno prikazovanje finančnega položaja in uporaba finančnega poročila, pripravljenega izrecno za namen preiskave), kar postavlja zanesljivost finančnega poročila družbe pod vprašaj.
Consequently, it was concluded that the company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 2.
Tako je bilo sklenjeno, da družba ni dokazala izpolnjevanja merila 2.
Yale and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Družbi Yale in industriji Skupnosti je bilo omogočeno, da predložita pripombe na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve.
No specific comments with respect to the above findings were made by Yale whereas one Community industry producer submitted some general comments.
Družba Yale ni predložila nobene posebne pripombe v zvezi z zgoraj navedenimi ugotovitvami, en proizvajalec industrije Skupnosti pa je predložil nekaj splošnih pripomb.
On the basis of the above, it was concluded that Yale has not shown that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could not be granted MET.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je bilo sklenjeno, da družba Yale ni dokazala izpolnjevanja vseh meril iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato ji ni bilo možno odobriti TGO.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide 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 set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and can thus be granted IT.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se za države, ki jih zajema navedeni člen, po potrebi uvede dajatev na ravni države razen v primerih, ko družbe dokažejo izpolnjevanje vseh meril iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe, in se jim zato odobri IO.
Yale also claimed IT in the event that it would not be granted MET.
Družba Yale je zaprosila tudi za IO, če ji ne bi bila odobrena TGO.
On the basis of the information available, it was established that the company did not fulfil the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij je bilo ugotovljeno, da družba ni izpolnjevala zahtev iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
In particular, as it is described in detail under recital 16, it was revealed at the on-the-spot-verification that the company was not in a position to freely determine its export quantities and conditions and terms of sale.
Kakor je podrobno opisano v uvodni izjavi (16), je bilo med preiskavo na kraju samem ugotovljeno, da družbi ni bilo omogočeno, da bi svobodno odločala o količini uvoza in pogojih prodaje.
Indeed, as outlined above, the company’s decisions with respect to domestic and export sales were linked to State-imposed sales restrictions contained in the company’s AoA.
Kakor je poudarjeno zgoraj, so bile odločitve družbe v zvezi z domačo prodajo in izvozom povezane z omejitvami prodaje, ki jih je določala država in ki so bile navedene v statutu družbe.
It was therefore concluded that the company could not be granted IT.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da družbi ni možno odobriti IO.
Dumping margin during the RIP
Stopnja dampinga med OPP
As described under recitals 18 and 22 above, Yale was not granted either MET or IT.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (18) in (22), družbi Yale nista bili odobreni ne TGO ne IO.
The situation of Yale has thus not changed with respect to the original investigation.
Položaj družbe Yale se torej glede na prvotno preiskavo ni spremenil.
In this regard it is recalled that as stated under recital 4, this review is limited in scope to the dumping as far as Yale is concerned.
Glede tega se poudarja, da je ta preiskava po obsegu omejena na damping, kar zadeva družbo Yale, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (4).
Thus, since no neither MET nor IT is granted, no new dumping margin, higher or lower than the existing one can be established for Yale in this review.
Ker družbi Yale nista bili odobreni ne TGO ne IO, se zanjo pri tem pregledu ne more določiti nova stopnja dampinga, višja ali nižja od obstoječe.
Finally, it is pertinent to note that during the original investigation Yale was a known exporting producer in the PRC, whom the Commission officially advised at the time of the initiation of the original investigation, but it did not cooperate.
Nazadnje je treba omeniti, da je med prvotno preiskavo družba Yale veljala za znanega proizvajalca izvoznika v LRK, katerega je Komisija ob začetku prvotne preiskave uradno obvestila o začetku preiskave, vendar pri preiskavi ni sodeloval.
In the original investigation five exporting producers cooperated with the investigation, one of which was granted MET and four were granted IT.
V prvotni preiskavi je sodelovalo pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov, pri čemer je enemu bila odobrena TGO, štirim pa IO.
With respect to Yale, its dumping margin was the countrywide dumping margin applicable to all exporters that did not cooperate with the original investigation.
Stopnja dampinga za družbo Yale je bila stopnja dampinga na ravni države, ki se uporablja za vse izvoznike, ki niso sodelovali pri prvotni preiskavi.
In light of the results of the investigation, the review should be terminated without amending the level of the duty applicable to Yale, which should be maintained at the level of the definitive anti-dumping duty rate established in the original investigation, i.e. 46,7 %.
Ob upoštevanju rezultatov preiskave je treba pregled zaključiti brez spremembe ravni dajatve, ki se uporablja za družbo Yale, in sicer je treba dajatev ohraniti na ravni dokončne protidampinške dajatve, določene v prvotni preiskavi, tj. 46,7 %.
Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the present review and to maintain the existing anti-dumping duty on imports of HPT produced by Yale.
Zainteresirane stranke so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravalo zaključiti sedanji pregled in ohraniti obstoječe protidampinške dajatve na uvoz RVP, ki jih proizvaja družba Yale.
All interested parties were given an opportunity to comment.
Vsem strankam je bila dana možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
The comments received were not of a nature as to change the conclusions.
Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb, ki bi lahko spremenile sklepe.
Following disclosure, Yale claimed that it should be granted IT.
Po razkritju je družba Yale trdila, da bi ji morala biti odobrena IO.
Nevertheless, the arguments submitted were not adequately substantiated and could not dispute the results of the investigation as described under recitals 16 and 22.
Vendar predloženi argumenti niso bili ustrezno podkrepljeni in niso mogli izpodbiti rezultatov preiskave, kakor je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (16) in (22).
Furthermore, by a letter dated 22 January 2009 and addressed to the Commission, Yale withdrew its application for a partial interim review.
Poleg tega je družba Yale na Komisijo naslovila pismo z dne 22. januarja 2009, s katerim je umaknila zahtevek za delni vmesni pregled.
The partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China, initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 is hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping measures in force.
Delni vmesni pregled protidampinških ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo pri uvozu ročnih vozičkov za premeščanje palet in njihovih osnovnih delov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, začet v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96, se s tem zaključi brez spremembe veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Ta uredba začne veljati dan po njeni objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
OJ C 308, 19.12.2007, p. 15.
UL C 308, 19.12.2007, str. 15.
Yale Industrial Products GmbH, Velbert, Germany.
Yale Industrial Products GmbH, Velbert, Nemčija.
Council Regulation (EC) No 189/2009
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 189/2009
amending Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia
o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1425/2006 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Tajske ter o zaključku postopka glede uvoza nekaterih vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas s poreklom iz Malezije
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation),
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dumpinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1], („osnovna uredba“),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 [2] and in particular Article 2 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1425/2006 [2], zlasti njenega člena 2,
By Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of certain plastic sacks and bags falling within CN codes ex39232100 (TARIC code 3923210020), ex39232910 (TARIC code 3923291020) and ex39232990 (TARIC code 3923299020), originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Thailand.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1425/2006 uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz v Skupnost nekaterih vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas, ki se uvrščajo pod oznake KN ex39232100 (oznaka TARIC 3923210020), ex39232910 (oznaka TARIC 3923291020) in ex39232990 (oznaka TARIC 3923299020), s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“) in Tajske.
Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers in the investigation that led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty (the original investigation), a sample of Chinese and Thai exporting producers was selected and individual duty rates ranging from 4,8 % to 14,3 % were imposed on the companies included in the samples, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 8,4 % for the PRC and 7,9 % for Thailand.
Zaradi velikega števila sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v preiskavi, ki je privedla do uvedbe protidampinške dajatve („prvotna preiskava“), je bil izbran vzorec kitajskih in tajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in za družbe, vključene v vzorec, so bile uvedene individualne stopnje dajatve v višini od 4,8 % do 14,3 %, pri drugih sodelujočih družbah, ki niso bile vključene v vzorec, pa je bila določena stopnja dajatve v višini 8,4 % za LRK in 7,9 % za Tajsko.
Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 stipulates that where any new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that:
Člen 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 1425/2006 določa, da kadar kateri koli novi proizvajalec izvoznik v LRK ali na Tajskem Komisiji predloži zadostne dokaze, da
it did not export to the Community the products described in Article 1(1) of that Regulation during the investigation period (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) (the investigation period) (the first criterion),
v obdobju preiskave (od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005) („obdobje preiskave“) v Skupnost ni izvažal izdelkov, opisanih v členu 1(1) navedene uredbe (prvo merilo),
it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC or Thailand which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by that Regulation (the second criterion), and
da ni povezan z nobenim izvoznikom ali proizvajalcem v LRK ali na Tajskem, za katerega veljajo protidampinški ukrepi, uvedeni z navedeno uredbo (drugo merilo), ter
it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community (the third criterion),
da je dejansko izvažal zadevne izdelke v Skupnost po obdobju preiskave, na katerem temeljijo ukrepi, ali je sklenil nepreklicno pogodbeno obveznost o izvozu velike količine v Skupnost (tretje merilo),
then Article 1 of that Regulation can be amended by granting the new exporting producer the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample, i.e. 8,4 % for Chinese companies and 7,9 % for Thai companies.
potem se člen 1 navedene uredbe lahko spremeni tako, da se novemu proizvajalcu izvozniku odobri stopnja dajatve, ki se uporablja za sodelujoče družbe, ki niso vključene v vzorec, in sicer 8,4 % za kitajske in 7,9 % za tajske družbe.
Seven companies (five Chinese and two Thai) have applied to be granted the same treatment as the companies cooperating in the original investigation not included in the sample (new exporting producer treatment).
Sedem družb (pet kitajskih in dve tajski) je vložilo zahtevek za odobritev enake obravnave, kot je bila odobrena družbam, ki so sodelovale pri prvotni preiskavi in niso bile vključene v vzorec („obravnava novega proizvajalca izvoznika“).
An examination has been carried out to determine whether the seven companies fulfil the criteria for being granted new exporting producer treatment as set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.
S preiskavo se je preverilo, ali navedenih sedem družb izpolnjuje pogoje za odobritev obravnave novega proizvajalca izvoznika iz člena 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 1425/2006.
An application form was sent to all seven applicants who were also asked to supply evidence to demonstrate that they meet the three criteria mentioned above.
Vsem sedmim vložnikom, ki so bili pozvani k predložitvi dokazov o izpolnjevanju zgoraj navedenih pogojev, je bil poslan vprašalnik.
Two Chinese companies requesting new exporting producer treatment did not provide the requested information.
Dve kitajski družbi, ki sta vložili zahtevek za obravnavo novega proizvajalca izvoznika, nista predložili zahtevanih informacij.
It was therefore not possible to verify whether these companies fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006, and their requests had to be rejected.
Zato ni bilo mogoče preveriti, ali izpolnjujeta pogoje iz člena 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 1425/2006 in njun zahtevek je bilo treba zavrniti.
One Thai company provided misleading information and its request was therefore rejected.
Ena tajska družba je predložila zavajajoče informacije, zato je bil njen zahtevek zavrnjen.
One Thai company exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period.
Ena tajska družba je zadevni izdelek v Skupnost izvažala v obdobju preiskave.
It thus did not meet the first criterion and its request was therefore rejected.
Tako ni izpolnila prvega pogoja in zato je bil njen zahtevek zavrnjen.
The evidence provided by the remaining three Chinese exporting producers is considered sufficient to show that they fulfil the criteria set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 and therefore to grant them the duty rate applicable to the cooperating companies not included in the sample (8,4 % for Chinese companies) and consequently to add their names to the list of exporting producers in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006.
Dokazi o izpolnjevanju pogojev iz člena 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 1425/2006, ki so jih predložili preostali trije kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki se štejejo za zadostne, zato se jim odobri stopnja dajatve, ki se uporablja za sodelujoče družbe, ki niso bile vključene v vzorec (8,4 % za kitajske družbe), in se jih doda na seznam izvoznikov proizvajalcev v Prilogi I k Uredbi (ES) št. 1425/2006.
The applicants and the Community industry were informed of the findings of the examination and were given the opportunity to submit their comments.
Vložniki in industrija Skupnosti so bili obveščeni o ugotovitvah preiskave in so lahko predložili pripombe.
The following companies shall be added to the list of producers from the People’s Republic of China listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006:
Na seznam proizvajalcev iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, navedenih v Prilogi I k Uredbi (ES) št. 1425/2006, se dodajo naslednje družbe:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 190/2009
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 190/2009
This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 March 2009.
Ta uredba začne veljati 12. marca 2009.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 191/2009
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 191/2009