natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These three producers were considered to be representative of the nitrogen fertilisers’ business (on average over 80 % of the turnover of the company/business segment) and their SG&A costs and profit thereby representative of those normally incurred by companies operating successfully in that business segment.
Ti trije proizvajalci so se šteli kot reprezentativni za poslovanje z dušikovimi gnojili (v povprečju več kot 80 % prihodka od prodaje družbe/poslovnega sektorja), njihovi PS&U stroški in dobiček pa tako reprezentativni med tistimi, ki jih imajo običajno družbe, ki uspešno poslujejo v tem poslovnem sektorju.
The percentage for SG&A costs was 6,9 %.
Odstotek za PS&U stroške je znašal 6,9 %.
The calculated average profit margin was 9,1 %.
Izračunana povprečna stopnja dobička je znašala 9,1 %.
It should be noted that the amount for profit so established did not exceed the profit realised by the Russian producers on sales of products of the same general category on their domestic market.
Treba je poudariti, da znesek tako določenega dobička ni presegal dobička, ki so ga dosegli ruski proizvajalci pri prodaji izdelkov enake splošne kategorije na svojem domačem trgu.
It was found that EuroChem’s sales of the product concerned to the Community during the IRIP were made on the basis of an agent agreement through two related traders, one located in Switzerland, EuroChem Trading, and the other one in the British Virgin Islands, Cumberland.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je prodaja zadevnega proizvoda, ki ga je Eurochem prodal Skupnosti med IRIP, potekala na podlagi zastopniške pogodbe preko dveh povezanih trgovcev, enega v Švici, Eurochem Trading, in drugega na Britanskih Deviških otokih, Cumberland.
The latter ceased to operate at the beginning of 2005.
Slednji je prenehal delovati v začetku leta 2005.
The export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting country to the Community.
Izvozna cena je bila določena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe na podlagi izvoznih cen, dejansko plačanih ali plačljivih za izdelek, ko je bil izvožen iz države izvoznice v Skupnost.
The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis, at the level of NAK Azot.
Normalna vrednost in izvozna cena sta se primerjali na podlagi cen franko tovarna na ravni NAK Azot.
Due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Izvedli so se ustrezni popravki v obliki prilagoditev, ki so vplivale na ceno in na primerljivost cen v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit and commissions, where applicable and supported by verified evidence.
V skladu s tem in kjer je bilo to potrebno ter podprto s preverjenimi dokazi, so bile izvedene prilagoditve za razlike v prevoznih, manipulativnih stroških, stroških natovarjanja in drugih tozadevnih stroških, stroških pakiranja, kreditov ter provizij.
In this respect, since export sales are made via the related traders mentioned above, and as these related traders were found to have functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis, an adjustment for each of these traders was made to the export price, pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da prodaja poteka preko zgoraj navedenih povezanih trgovcev in imajo ti povezani trgovci podobne naloge kot zastopnik, ki dela za provizijo, je bila prilagoditev izvozne cene za vsakega od teh trgovcev izvedena v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of cooperation from Community importers, this adjustment was made at the level of 1,5 %, since this level reflected commissions paid to independent agents involved in the trade of the product concerned in the original investigation.
Zaradi nesodelovanja uvoznikov Skupnosti, je bila ta prilagoditev določena na 1,5 %, saj ta stopnja odraža provizije, plačane neodvisnim zastopnikom, vključenim v trgovino z zadevnim izdelkom v prvotni preiskavi.
The dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.
Stopnja dampinga je bila v skladu s členom 2(11) osnovne uredbe določena na podlagi primerjave tehtanega povprečja normalne vrednosti in tehtanega povprečja izvozne cene.
The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, is 28,3 %.
Stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek cene CIF meja Skupnosti brez plačane dajatve, znaša 28,3 %.
In this regard, it should be noted that normal value in the original investigation was established on the basis of profitable sales prices in the USA domestic market, since Russia was not a market economy country at that time.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je bila normalna vrednost v prvotni preiskavi določena na podlagi dobičkonosnih prodajnih cen na domačem trgu ZDA, ker Rusija v tistem času ni bila država s tržnim gospodarstvom.
In the context of the current review investigation, Russia is considered a market economy country, and the normal value has therefore been established on the basis of EuroChem’s cost of production, adjusted where necessary.
V okviru sedanje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom se šteje, da je Rusija država s tržnim gospodarstvom, zato je bila normalna vrednost določena na podlagi proizvodnih stroškov Eurochema ter po potrebi prilagojena.
By comparing the normal values and export prices of the previous and the current investigation, it has been established that, account being taken of comparable product types, normal value has considerably increased, but the average export price has increased even more, leading to a decreased level of dumping.
S primerjanjem normalnih vrednosti in izvoznih cen, ugotovljenih med predhodno in sedanjo preiskavo, je bilo ob upoštevanju primerljivih vrst izdelkov ugotovljeno, da se je normalna vrednost znatno povečala, medtem ko se je povprečna izvozna cena bistveno zmanjšala, zaradi česar je stopnja dampinga nižja.
As for the export prices to other markets, they have been found to be generally in line with export prices to the Community.
Kar zadeva izvozne cene na ostale trge, je bilo ugotovljeno, da so v splošnem enake kot cene za izvoz v Skupnost.
No evidence was found that export sales would not continue to be made at dumped prices, however at a lower level than in the original investigation.
Dokazano je bilo, da bodo izvozne cene še naprej dampinške cene, vendar po nižji stopnji kot v prvotni preiskavi.
On this basis, it is concluded that the changed circumstances with respect to the original investigation regarding dumping (now based on the comparison of the own normal value and export prices of EuroChem) could reasonably be considered to be of a lasting nature.
Na podlagi tega se sklene, da se spremenjene okoliščine glede na prvotno preiskavo v zvezi z dampingom (zdaj na podlagi primerjave lastne normalne vrednosti in izvoznih cen Eurochema) upravičeno lahko štejejo za trajne.
According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping duty should not exceed the margin of dumping established, but it should be less than that margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury of the Community industry.
V skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe znesek protidampinške dajatve ne sme presegati določene stopnje dampinga, ampak mora biti nižji od navedene stopnje, če bi taka nižja dajatev zadoščala za odpravo škode v industriji Skupnosti.
As the existing duties for Russia had been calculated on the basis of the injury margin, and as the new dumping margin established during this investigation is lower than the injury margin previously calculated, the duty should be adjusted to the dumping margin found in this investigation, namely 28,3 %.
Ker so bile obstoječe dajatve za Rusijo izračunane na podlagi stopnje škode in ker je nova stopnja dampinga, določena med to preiskavo, nižja od predhodno izračunane stopnje škode, se mora dajatev prilagoditi na stopnjo dampinga, ugotovljenega v tej preiskavi, in sicer 28,3 %.
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping and the lasting nature of the changed circumstances, the individual anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned in respect of EuroChem should be amended in order to reflect the new dumping margin found.
V skladu s sklepnimi ugotovitvami, ugotovljenimi glede dampinga in trajne narave spremenjenih okoliščin, je treba prilagoditi posamezno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz zadevnega izdelka v zvezi z družbo Eurochem, da se upošteva nova ugotovljena stopnja dampinga.
Since the dumping level found is lower than the injury margin established in the previous investigation, the duty rate should be set at the dumping level found.
Ker je ugotovljena raven dampinga nižja od stopnje škode, ugotovljene v prejšnji preiskavi, je treba stopnjo dajatve določiti pri ugotovljeni ravni dampinga.
Since in the original investigation the duty was imposed in the form of a specific amount per tonne, it should have the same form in the current investigation.
Ker je bila v prvotni preiskavi dajatev uvedena v obliki določenega zneska na tono, mora imeti enako obliko tudi v sedanji preiskavi.
Thus, the duty is EUR 32,82/tonne.
Dajatev tako znaša 32,82 EUR/tono.
The duty should be applied, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 945/2005, in proportion to the content of AN and of other marginal substances and nutrients, in the case of compounds of AN fertilisers with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 % by weight.
Dajatev se v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 945/2005 uporablja sorazmerno z vsebnostjo AN ter drugih nepomembnih snovi in hranil, v primeru sestavljenih AN gnojil z vsebnostjo dušika, ki presega 28 mas. %.
Although this duty has been based on data from NAK Azot, as stated above, it will apply to all sales made by EuroChem, regardless of which related factory manufactured the product.
Čeprav je ta dajatev temeljila na podatkih družbe NAK Azot, kot je navedeno zgoraj, se bo uporabljala za vso prodajo Eurochema, ne glede na to, katera povezana družba je proizvedla izdelek.
EXPIRY REVIEW
PREGLED ZARADI IZTEKA UKREPA
For reasons of consistency it has been, as a first step, examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.
Zaradi skladnosti je bilo najprej preučeno, ali damping trenutno obstaja in ali se bo zaradi izteka veljavnosti ukrepov nadaljeval.
Dumping of imports during the ERIP
Dampinški uvoz med OPP
As mentioned above, three exporting producers (EuroChem, Acron and Minudiobreniya) have cooperated in the investigation.
Kot navedeno zgoraj, so v preiskavi sodelovali trije proizvajalci izvozniki (Eurochem, Acron in Minudiobreniya).
The Commission examined whether the domestic sales could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je preučila, ali se lahko šteje, da je domača prodaja del običajnega poteka trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
To this end, the cost of production of the product produced and sold by the cooperating exporting producers on the domestic market was examined.
V ta namen so bili preučeni proizvodni stroški izdelka, ki so ga proizvedli in prodali sodelujoči proizvajalci izvozniki na domačem trgu.
Gas is a main raw material component in the manufacturing process of the product concerned and represents a significant proportion of the cost of production.
Plin je glavna sestavina surovin v proizvodnem postopku zadevnega izdelka in predstavlja znatni delež proizvodnih stroškov.
In accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration were reasonably reflected in the records of the parties concerned.
V skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe je bilo preučeno, ali so stroški, ki so povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo obravnavanega izdelka, ustrezno izraženi v evidencah zadevnih strank.
It was established, on the basis of data published by internationally recognised sources specialised in energy markets that the prices paid by the Russian producers, based on governmental regulation, were abnormally low.
Na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih objavili mednarodno priznani viri, specializirani za energetske trge, je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile cene, ki so jih plačevali ruski proizvajalci na podlagi državnih predpisov nenormalno nizke.
By way of illustration, they amounted to around one-fourth of the export price of natural gas from Russia and were also significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Community producers.
Če ponazorimo, so znašale približno eno četrtino izvozne cene zemeljskega plina iz Rusije in so bile tudi znatno nižje od cene plina, ki so jo plačevali proizvajalci Skupnosti.
Since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the cooperating producers’ records, they had to be adjusted accordingly.
Ker stroški plina niso bili ustrezno izraženi v evidencah sodelujočih proizvajalcev, jih je bilo treba ustrezno prilagoditi.
In the absence of any sufficiently representative undistorted gas prices related to the Russian domestic market, it was considered appropriate to base the adjustment, in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, on information from other representative markets.
Ker ni bilo zadostno reprezentativnih neizkrivljenih cen plina, povezanih z ruskim domačim trgom, se je štelo za primerno, da se prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe utemelji na informacijah drugih reprezentativnih trgov.
In this case, the adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border, net of transport costs and adjusted to reflect local distribution costs (‘the adjusted Waidhaus price’).
V tem primeru je prilagojena cena temeljila na povprečni ceni ruskega plina, ki se proda za izvoz na nemško/češki meji, brez prevoznih stroškov in popravljena tako, da odraža stroške lokalne distribucije („prilagojena Waidhaus cena“).
Waidhaus being the main hub for Russian gas sales to the EU and is the largest market for Russian gas.
Waidhaus je glavno vozlišče ruske prodaje plina v EU in največji trg za ruski plin.
Accordingly, it can be considered a representative market.
Tako se lahko šteje kot reprezentativni trg.
In relation to the adjusted Waidhaus price, a number of arguments have been put forward by Russian exporters.
Ruski izvozniki so v zvezi s prilagojeno Waidhaus ceno predložili številne argumente.
First, it was claimed that any adjustment of their gas price paid on the domestic market would be unwarranted alleging that their accounting records fully reflected the costs associated with the activity of production and sales of the like product in the country of origin.
Prvič, trdili so, da bi bila vsaka prilagoditev njihove cene plina, plačane na domačem trgu, neupravičena domneva, da njihove računovodske evidence v celoti odražajo stroške, ki so povezani s proizvodno dejavnostjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka v državi porekla.
To substantiate this claim, a study from an independent consultancy firm stating that the gas price paid by Russian exporters reflected full cost of production and sale of gas, as incurred by the gas provider, was provided.
Za utemeljitev te trditve je bila zagotovljena študija neodvisnega svetovalnega podjetja, ki navaja, da so cene plina, ki so jih plačevali ruski izvozniki, odražale polne proizvodne stroške ter stroške prodaje plina, ki jih ima ponudnik plina.
It should be noted that, as the study itself sets out, the costs of gas as well as the cost of the delivery of the gas to Russian producers of AN used for the comparison were estimated costs and thus not actual costs incurred during the ERIP.
Treba je poudariti, da, kot določa tudi sama študija, so bili tako stroški plina kot tudi stroški dostave plina ruskim proizvajalcem AN, ki so bili uporabljeni za primerjavo, ocenjeni stroški in zato ne dejanski stroški, ki so nastali med OPP.
It is also unclear whether the costs thus established were full costs as established in accordance with the basic Regulation, i.e. including full costs of manufacturing and full SG&A costs linked to the production and sale of gas.
Nejasno je tudi, ali so bili tako določeni stroški polni stroški, kot je določeno v skladu z osnovno uredbo, tj. vključno s polnimi proizvodnimi stroški in polnimi PS&U stroški, povezanimi s proizvodnjo in prodajo plina.
Finally, it is also noted that the information available on the gas provider’s costs could not be verified within the framework of this proceeding and information available does not suggest that domestic sales prices of Russian gas covered costs of the gas supplier, Gazprom, during the whole ERIP.
Končno je zabeleženo tudi, da informacij, ki so na voljo glede stroškov ponudnika plina, ni bilo mogoče preveriti v okviru tega postopka, prav tako pa razpoložljive informacije ne kažejo, da so domače prodajne cene ruskega plina med OPP pokrivale stroške dobavitelja plina, Gazprom.
In any case, it is considered that under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the sole fact that the price of gas charged by the supplier to its clients is cost covering is as such not a criterion to establish whether the costs of production of the like product as booked in the company’s accounts are reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation.
V vsakem primeru se šteje, da po členu 2(5) osnovne uredbe samo dejstvo, da cena plina, ki jo dobavitelj zaračuna svojim strankam, pokriva stroške, kot tako ni merilo za določanje, ali proizvodni stroški podobnega proizvoda, kot so knjiženi v računovodskih evidencah družbe, ustrezno odražajo stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo in prodajo izdelka v preiskavi.
For the reasons set out above (publications of internationally recognised sources specialised in energy markets and comparison of gas prices in Russia with prices of exported Russian gas) this was found not to be the case.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov (objave mednarodno priznanih virov, specializiranih za energetske trge, ter primerjave cen plina v Rusiji in cen izvoženega ruskega plina) se je izkazalo, da to ne drži.
Second, the Russian producers of AN did not address the apparent significant difference between the price for gas paid on the Russian domestic market and the export price of natural gas from Russia on the one hand and the one paid by the Community producers on the other hand.
Drugič, ruski proizvajalci AN niso upoštevali očitne bistvene razlike med ceno plina, plačane na ruskem domačem trgu, in izvozno ceno zemeljskega plina iz Rusije na eni strani ter ceno, ki so jo plačevali proizvajalci Skupnosti, na drugi strani.
They did also not address the fact that domestic prices for natural gas were regulated in Russia and could not be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Prav tako niso upoštevali dejstva, da so bile domače cene zemeljskega plina v Rusiji nadzorovane in se za njih ni moglo šteti, da ustrezno odražajo ceno, običajno plačljivo na neizkrivljenih trgih.
Therefore, even if the gas price paid by the AN producer covered the unit cost of production and sales of the gas incurred by its provider, these arguments are irrelevant since the market price of gas is not necessarily directly linked to costs of its production and sales and the price at which Russian companies were purchasing the gas during the ERIP continue to be state regulated and significantly below the price level in non-regulated markets as explained above (price of gas in Russia was during the ERIP around one-fourth of its export price).
Čeprav je cena plina, ki jo je plačeval proizvajalec AN, pokrivala stroške na enoto proizvodnje in prodaje plina, ki jih ima ponudnik plina, so zato ti argumenti nepomembni, saj tržna cena plina ni nujno neposredno povezana s stroški njegove proizvodnje in prodaje, ceno, po kateri so ruske družbe kupovale plin med OPP, pa še naprej nadzira država in je bistveno nižja od ravni cene na nenadzorovanih trgih, kot je razloženo zgoraj (cena plina v Rusiji je med OPP znašala približno eno četrtino njegove izvozne cene).
This claim therefore had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba ta zahtevek zavrniti.
It was further claimed that by making a gas adjustment, de facto a methodology to determine normal value was used which is not foreseen by the basic Regulation.
Nadalje so trdili, da je bila pri prilagoditvi cene plina dejansko uporabljena metodologija določanja normalne vrednosti, ki je osnovna uredba ne predvideva.
Thus, by replacing domestic gas costs by costs based on the adjusted Waidhaus price, and due to the fact that these costs constitute major part of the total costs of the like product and therefore also of the constructed normal value, the normal value would be de facto determined by data from a third ‘representative’ market.
Če se domači stroški plina zamenjajo s stroški, ki temeljijo na prilagojeni Waidhaus ceni, in zaradi dejstva, da ti stroški predstavljajo velik del celotnih stroškov podobnega proizvoda in zato tudi konstruirane normalne vrednosti, bi bila zato normalna vrednost dejansko določena s podatki iz tretjega „reprezentativnega“ trga.
In this regard, it was argued that for market economy countries, the basic Regulation foresees only the following methodologies to determine the normal value: (i) on the basis of the domestic price of the like product in the ordinary cause of trade, or alternatively, in case sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade, (ii) on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin (plus a reasonable amount for SG&A costs and for profits), or (iii) representative export prices of the like product to an appropriate third country.
V zvezi s tem se je dokazovalo, da za države s tržnim gospodarstvom osnovna uredba predvideva samo naslednje metodologije za določanje normalne vrednosti: (i) na podlagi domače cene podobnega izdelka v običajnem poteku trgovine ali kadar prodaja ni opravljena v običajnem poteku, (ii) na podlagi proizvodnih stroškov države izvora (s prištetim primernim zneskom za PS&U stroške ter za dobiček) ali (iii) na podlagi reprezentativnih izvoznih cen podobnega izdelka ustrezni tretji državi.
The Russian exporters concluded that on this basis normal value should not be based on data from a third representative market.
Ruski izvozniki so sklenili, da na tej podlagi normalna vrednost ne bi smela temeljiti na podatkih iz tretjega reprezentativnega trga.
In this regard, it should first be noted that normal value was established in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej poudariti, da je bila normalna vrednost določena v skladu z metodologijami, kot so določene v členu 2(1) do (6) osnovne uredbe.
However, in order to establish whether domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, i.e. whether they were profitable, it must first be established whether the costs of the AN producer were a reliable basis within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Da bi ugotovili, ali je domača prodaja potekala v običajnem poteku trgovine zaradi cene, tj. ali je bila dobičkonosna, je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali so bili stroški proizvajalca AN zanesljiva osnova v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
Only after costs have been reliably established, can it be determined which methodology to establish normal value should be used.
Šele ko so stroški zanesljivo ugotovljeni, je mogoče določiti, katera metodologija se bo uporabila za ugotavljanje normalne vrednosti.
The Russian producers’ arguments in this respect therefore had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba argumente ruskih proizvajalcev v zvezi s tem zavrniti.