natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The applicant, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being granted MET.
Vložnik je poleg TGO zahteval tudi IO za primer, če mu TGO ne bi bil odobrena.
As explained in recital 16 above, it is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for IT.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 16, je ustaljena praksa Komisije preveriti, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za IO.
As indicated in recital 15, there was one additional producer and one exporter related to the applicant during the IP which did not cooperate with the present investigation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, sta bila z vložnikom v OP povezana še en proizvajalec in en izvoznik, ki nista sodelovala v trenutni preiskavi.
Thus, no conclusion could be made on whether these two companies fulfilled the criteria for IT.
Zato sklepnih ugotovitev v zvezi z izpolnjevanjem meril IO s strani teh dveh družb ni bilo možno sprejeti.
It is therefore concluded that neither MET nor IT should be granted to the applicant.
Zato se sklene, da se vložniku ne odobrita niti TGO niti IO.
The applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Vložnik, organi države izvoznice in zadevne stranke so imeli možnost, da dajo pripombe na zgornje ugotovitve.
Only the applicant submitted the comments below.
Pripombe je predložil samo vložnik in so povzete v nadaljevanju.
The applicant first reiterated its claim that the investigation on both MET and IT should focus only on producers and traders of the product concerned during the IP, and alleged that the two companies which did not cooperate were not involved in the production or sale of the product concerned.
Vložnik je najprej ponovil svojo trditev, da mora biti preiskava v zvezi s TGO in v zvezi z IO osredotočena samo na proizvajalce in trgovce, ki so zadevni izdelek proizvajali ali prodajali v OP, in trdil, da družbi, ki nista sodelovali, nista bili vključeni v proizvodnjo ali prodajo zadevnega izdelka.
Then it further argued that the Commission officials received all necessary information to assess IT for the two non-cooperating companies while they were on the spot.
Trdil je tudi, da so uradniki Komisije prejeli vse informacije, potrebne za oceno IO v zvezi z nesodelujočima družbama, ko so bili na kraju samem.
On the first claim, it is noted that the exact activity of these two companies during the IP could not be checked during the verification visit precisely because of non-cooperation, as mentioned in particular in recital 15 above.
Glede prve trditve je treba opozoriti, da, kot je posebej navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, natančne dejavnosti teh dveh družb v OP med preveritvenim obiskom ni bilo možno preveriti prav zaradi nesodelovanja.
Therefore, the applicant did not demonstrate that the two non-cooperating companies had not produced or were not involved in the sale of the product concerned during the IP.
Torej vložnik ni dokazal, da nesodelojuči družbi v OP nista proizvajali zadevnega izdelka ali bili vključeni v prodajo zadevnega izdelka.
It is also noted that, whatever the activity of the producer during the IP, it should be included in the assessment of the group for the reasons explained in particular in recital 16 above.
Treba je tudi opozoriti, da mora biti dejavnost proizvajalca ne glede na njeno vrsto v OP zajeta v oceni skupine, kot je pojasnjeno zlasti v uvodni izjavi 16.
It is thus maintained that these two companies should have cooperated in the investigation.
Zato se stališče, da bi ti dve družbi morali sodelovati v preiskavi, ne spremeni.
As mentioned in recital 24 to 27 above, the information provided during the on-the-spot visit was insufficient to make an assessment concerning IT for the two non-cooperating companies.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 24 do 27, so bile informacije, predložene na kraju obiska, nezadostne za oceno v zvezi z IO za nesodelujoči družbi.
In addition, this information was not provided within the time limit set for the submission of the IT claim and was provided so late that it did not allow its verification by the Commission.
Poleg tega informacije niso bile predložene v roku za vložitev zahtevka za IO, temveč so bile predložene tako pozno, da jih Komisija ni mogla preveriti.
The applicant further submitted that the Commission’s current practice to examine IT criteria is an infringement of Article 2.3 of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement, since this agreement should be considered as an integral part of the EC legal order.
Vložnik je poleg tega navedel, da Komisija s svojim sedanjim načinom proučevanja meril IO krši člen 2.3 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, saj je ta sporazum treba obravnavati kot sestavni del pravnega reda ES.
However, given the non-cooperation from two related companies, IT criteria were not further examined in the present investigation, and the issue of their compatibility with WTO rules was thus irrelevant in the present case.
Vendar pa se zaradi nesodelovanja dveh povezanih družb, merila IO v trenutni preiskavi niso naprej proučevala in je zato vprašanje njihove združljivosti s pravili STO v tem primeru nepomembno.
Therefore this claim could not be further considered.
Zato se ta trditev ni mogla upoštevati.
Based on the above facts and considerations, it is thus confirmed that the applicant and the group in which it operates cannot be granted IT.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih dejstev in premislekov se zato potrjuje, da se vložniku in skupini, v okviru katere ta deluje, ne more odobriti IO.
The purpose of the present review was to determine the individual margin of dumping of the applicant, which was allegedly different from the current residual margin applicable to imports of the product concerned from the PRC.
Namen sedanjega pregleda je bil določiti individualno stopnjo dampinga za vložnika, ki se je domnevno razlikovala od preostale stopnje, ki se sedaj uporablja za uvoz zadevnega izdelka iz LRK.
The request was mainly based on the allegation that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for MET.
Zahtevek je temeljil zlasti na trditvi, da je vložnik izpolnjeval merila TGO.
As the investigation concluded in particular that, in the absence of cooperation from its related producer and exporter, the applicant was granted neither MET nor IT, the Commission could not establish that the applicant’s individual dumping margin was indeed different from the residual dumping margin established in the original investigation.
Ker je bilo s preiskavo ugotovljeno zlasti, da zaradi nesodelovanja njegovega povezanega proizvajalca in njegovega povezanega izvoznika vložniku nista bili odobreni ne TGO ne IO. Komisija ni mogla potrditi, da se je individualna stopnja dampinga resnično razlikovala od preostale stopnje dampinga, ugotovljene v prvotni preiskavi.
The residual anti-dumping duty found during the original investigation, i.e. 39,9 %, should consequently be maintained as far as the applicant is concerned.
Preostala protidampinška dajatev v višini 39,9 %, ugotovljena v prvotni preiskavi, mora zato v zvezi z vložnikom ostati nespremenjena.
As the review has resulted in a determination of dumping in respect of the company, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the company should be levied retro-actively on imports of the product concerned which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
Ker je bil izid pregleda ugotovitev dampinga v zvezi z zadevno družbo, se za to družbo retroaktivno obračuna protidampinška dajatev na uvoz zadevnega izdelka, za katerega velja registracija v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 1536/2007.
The applicant was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on its imports into the Community and was given the opportunity to comment.
Vložnik je bil obveščen o osnovnih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala uvesti dokončna protidampinška dajatev na njegov uvoz v Skupnost, pri čemer mu je bila dana možnost, da predloži pripombe.
This review does not affect the date on which Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,
Ta pregled ne vpliva na datum prenehanja veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1659/2005 v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe –
The new exporter review initiated by Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007 is hereby terminated and the anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 to ‘all other companies’ in the People’s Republic of China is hereby imposed on imports identified in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
Pregled glede novega izvoznika, začet z Uredbo Komisije (ES) 1536/2007, se s tem zaključi, protidampinška dajatev, ki se v skladu s členom 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 1659/2005 uporablja za „vse druge družbe“ v Ljudski republiki Kitajski, pa se uvede na uvoz iz člena 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 1536/2007.
The anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 to ‘all other companies’ in the People’s Republic of China is hereby levied with effect from 22 December 2007 on imports of certain magnesia bricks which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
Protidampinška dajatev, ki se uporablja v skladu s členom 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 1659/2005 za „vse druge družbe“ v Ljudski republiki Kitajski, se za uvoz določenih vrst magnezitne opeke, ki je bil registriran v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 1536/2007, obračuna z učinkom od 22. decembra 2007.
The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
Carinskim organom se dajo navodila, da prenehajo z registracijo uvoza, ki se izvaja v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 1536/2007.
Article 1(2) shall apply with effect from 22 December 2007.
Člen 1(2) se uporablja z učinkom od 22. decembra 2007.
OJ L 337, 21.12.2007, p. 42.
UL L 337, 21.12.2007, str. 42.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,
izvozniki lahko v primeru družb ali mešanih družb, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, kapital in dobičke vrnejo v domovino,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 907/2008
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 907/2008
This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 September 2008.
Ta uredba začne veljati 19. septembra 2008.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 908/2008
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 908/2008
establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters south of 62° N by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
o prepovedi ribolova na trsko v norveških vodah južno od 62° N s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo Švedske
Norwegian waters south of 62° N
norveške vode južno od 62° N
Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2008
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 909/2008
establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EC waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
o prepovedi ribolova na osliča v conah VI in VII, vodah ES cone Vb ter mednarodnih vodah con XII in XIV s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo Nizozemske
VI and VII; EC waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV
coni VI in VII, vode ES cone Vb, mednarodne vode con XII in XIV
NLD
Nizozemska
Commission Regulation (EC) No 910/2008
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 910/2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 in respect of laying down detailed rules for out-of-quota exports in the sugar sector
o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006 v zvezi z določitvijo podrobnih pravil za izvoz izven kvote v sektorju sladkorja
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector [1], and in particular Article 40(1) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 318/2006 z dne 20. februarja 2006 o skupni ureditvi trgov za sladkor [1] in zlasti člena 40(1) Uredbe,
According to Article 12(d) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 the sugar or isoglucose produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 7 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.
V skladu s členom 12(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006 se lahko sladkor ali izoglukoza, ki je bila proizvedena v tržnem letu in presega kvoto iz člena 7 navedene uredbe, izvozi le v okviru količinske omejitve, ki jo je treba določiti.
To this end it should be considered an export quota within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b)(iii) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products [2].
Zaradi tega mora izvozna kvota veljati v smislu člena 1(2)(b)(iii) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 376/2008 z dne 23. aprila 2008 o določitvi skupnih podrobnih pravil za uporabo sistema uvoznih in izvoznih dovoljenj in potrdil o vnaprejšnji določitvi za kmetijske proizvode [2].
In respect of the sugar sector, Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 [3] lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 951/2006 [3] določa podrobna pravila za izvajanje Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006 glede trgovine s tretjimi državami v sektorju sladkorja.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 [4] as amended by Regulation (EC) No 707/2008 [5] simplified the use of methods for the determination of sugar content of syrups.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 952/2006 [4], kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 707/2008 [5], je poenostavila uporabo metod za določitev vsebnosti sladkorja v sirupih.
It is therefore appropriate to harmonise the methods used in the case of export refunds with those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 952/2006.
Zato je primerno uskladiti metode, uporabljene v primeru izvoznih nadomestil, z metodami iz Uredbe (ES) št. 952/2006.
With a view to ensuring orderly management, preventing speculation and providing for effective controls, detailed rules should be laid down for submitting licence applications for out-of-quota exports of sugar and isoglucose.
Da bi zagotovili pravilno upravljanje, preprečili špekulacije in omogočili učinkovit nadzor, je treba določiti podrobna pravila za vložitev zahtevkov za dovoljenja za izvoz sladkorja in izoglukoze izven kvote.
Further implementing provisions should be established for the administration of the quantitative limit to be fixed by another Act, in particular regarding the conditions for applying for export licences.
Uvesti je treba nadaljnje izvedbene določbe za upravljanje količinske omejitve, določene z drugim aktom, zlasti glede pogojev za zahtevke za izvozna dovoljenja.
In order to reduce the risks of possible frauds linked to the reintroduction on the Community market of out-of-quota sugar and/or isoglucose it may be decided to exclude certain destinations from the eligible destinations.
Da bi se zmanjšalo tveganje morebitnih goljufij, povezanih s ponovno uvedbo izvenkvotnega sladkorja in/ali izoglukoze na trgu Skupnosti, se lahko sprejme odločitev o izključitvi nekaterih namembnih držav s seznama upravičenih namembnih držav.
For such cases it is necessary to define those documents that would prove that the products in question have been imported into a country not excluded from the eligible destinations.
V takih primerih je potrebno opredeliti navedene dokumente, ki bodo dokazovali, da so bili zadevni proizvodi uvoženi v državo, ki ni izključena s seznama upravičenih namembnih držav.
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1541/2007 of 20 December 2007 on proof of completion of customs formalities for the import of sugar into third countries as provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 [6] defines those documents that provide sufficient proofs of importation in case of differentiated export refunds.
Člen 1 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1541/2007 z dne 20. decembra 2007 o dokazilu o opravljenih carinskih formalnosti za uvoz sladkorja v tretje države, kakor je določeno v členu 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999 [6], določa navedene dokumente, ki zagotavljajo dovolj dokazil o uvozu v primeru diferenciranih izvoznih nadomestil.
The same documents should also be accepted as proof for out-of-quota exports.
Iste dokumente je treba sprejeti kot dokazila za izvoz izven kvote.
Experience acquired has shown that the application for export licences concerning the specific (EX/IM) refining operations is very limited.
Na podlagi pridobljenih izkušenj je število zahtevkov za izvozna dovoljenja za posebne (IZ/UV) operacije rafiniranja omejeno.
Therefore, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, namely Articles 13 to16 thereof, should be deleted.
Zato je treba črtati ustrezne določbe Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006, tj. člena 13 in 16 Uredbe.
Transitional rules should nevertheless be laid down in respect of pending applications.
Treba pa je določiti prehodna pravila za nerešene zahtevke.
According to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements [7] all import duties shall be eliminated on imports of molasses into the Community originating in the ACP countries.
V skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1528/2007 z dne 20. decembra 2007 o uporabi ureditev za blago s poreklom iz nekaterih držav iz skupine afriških, karibskih in pacifiških držav (AKP), določenih v sporazumih, ki vzpostavljajo ali vodijo k vzpostavitvi sporazumov o gospodarskem partnerstvu [7], se odpravijo vse uvozne dajatve za uvoz melase s poreklom iz držav AKP v Skupnost.
Therefore Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should be deleted.
Zato je treba črtati člen 41 Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006.
Part A of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should be amended, as no reference to a specific Regulation should be mentioned therein beforehand.
Del A Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 951/2006 je treba spremeniti, ker se v njem ne sme v naprej omenjati sklicevanja na določeno uredbo.
In accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, when the export refund is fixed pursuant to an invitation to tender, section 20 of the licence application and of the licence should contain a reference to the Regulation that opens a standing invitation to tender in a given marketing year.
V skladu s členom 6(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006 mora oddelek 20 zahtevka za dovoljenje in dovoljenja vsebovati sklic na uredbo, ki odpira stalni javni razpis v zadevnem tržnem letu, če je nadomestilo za izvoz določeno na podlagi razpisa.
Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Uredbo (ES) št. 951/2006 je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
In Article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:
V členu 3 se odstavka 2 in 3 nadomestita z naslednjim:
Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4, the sucrose content plus, where applicable, the content of other sugars expressed as sucrose shall be calculated in accordance with points (d) and (e) of Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006.
Brez poseganja v odstavka 3 in 4 se vsebnost saharoze, ki se ji, če je to ustrezno, prišteje vsebnost drugih sladkorjev, izraženih kot saharoza, izračuna v skladu s točkama (d) in (e) člena 3(3) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 952/2006.
The following Chapter IIa is inserted:
Vstavi se naslednje poglavje IIa:
OUT-OF-QUOTA EXPORTS
IZVOZ IZVEN KVOTE
Proofs of arrival at destination
Dokazila o prispetju v namembno državo
Where certain destinations are excluded for exports of out-of-quota sugar and/or isoglucose, products shall be deemed to have been imported into a third country on presentation of the following three documents:
Kadar so nekatere namembne države izključene s seznama za izvoz izvenkvotnega sladkorja in/ali izoglukoze, se šteje, da so bili proizvodi uvoženi v tretjo državo ob predložitvi naslednjih treh dokumentov:
a bank document issued by approved intermediaries established in the Community certifying that payment corresponding to the export in question has been credited to the account of the exporter opened with them, or proof of payment.’
bančnega dokumenta, ki so ga izdali potrjeni posredniki s sedežem v Skupnosti, ki potrjuje, da je bilo plačilo, ki ustreza zadevnemu izvozu, nakazano na račun izvoznika, ki je odprt pri njih, ali dokazila o plačilu.“
Export licence for sugar or isoglucose without refund
Izvozno dovoljenje za sladkor ali izoglukozo brez nadomestila
Where sugar or isoglucose in free circulation in the Community market and not considered as “out-of-quota” is to be exported without refund, section 20 of the licence application and of the licence shall contain one of the entries listed in Part C of the Annex, according to the product in question as the case may be.’
Če se sladkor ali izoglukoza, ki sta v prostem prometu na trgu Skupnosti in se ne štejeta kot ‚izven kvote‘, izvažata brez nadomestila, oddelek 20 zahtevka za dovoljenje in dovoljenja vsebuje eno od naslednjih navedb iz dela C Priloge glede na zadevni proizvod in posamezni primer.“
The following Articles 7a to 7e are inserted:
Vstavijo se naslednji členi od 7a do 7e:
Export licences for out-of-quota exports
Izvozna dovoljenja za izvoz izven kvote
By way of derogation from the provisions of Article 5, exports of out-of-quota isoglucose within the quantitative limit referred to in Article 12(d) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence.
Z odstopanjem od določb člena 5 je za izvoz izvenkvotne izoglukoze v okviru količinske omejitve iz člena 12(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006 treba predložiti izvozno dovoljenje.
Application for out-of-quota export licences
Zahtevki za izvozna dovoljenja za izvoz izven kvote
Applications for export licences in respect of the quantitative limit to be fixed pursuant to Article 12(d) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 may be submitted only by producers of beet and cane sugar or producers of isoglucose which are approved in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 and to which a sugar or isoglucose quota has been allocated in respect of the marketing year concerned in accordance with Article 7 of that Regulation, account being taken of, as the case may be, of Articles 8, 9 and 11 of that Regulation.
Zahtevke za izvozna dovoljenja, povezane s količinsko omejitvijo, ki jo je treba določiti v skladu s členom 12(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006, lahko predložijo le proizvajalci pesnega in trsnega sladkorja ali proizvajalci izoglukoze, ki so odobreni v skladu s členom 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006 in ki jim je bila kvota za sladkor ali izoglukozo za zadevno tržno leto dodeljena v skladu s členom 7 navedene uredbe, ob upoštevanju, odvisno od primera, členov 8, 9 in 11 navedene uredbe.
Applications for export licences shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the applicant has been allocated a sugar or an isoglucose quota.
Zahtevki za izvozna dovoljenja se predložijo pristojnim organom države članice, v kateri je bila vlagatelju dodeljena kvota za sladkor ali izoglukozo.
Applications for export licences shall be submitted each week, from Monday to Friday, starting on the date of entry into force of the Regulation fixing the quantitative limit pursuant to Article 12(d) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 and until the issue of licences is discounted in accordance with Article 7e.
Zahtevki za izvozna dovoljenja se predložijo vsak teden, od ponedeljka do petka, in sicer od datuma začetka veljavnosti uredbe o določitvi količinske omejitve v skladu s členom 12(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 318/2006 do prekinitve izdaje dovoljenj v skladu s členom 7e.
Applicants may submit one application for export licence per week.
Vlagatelji lahko predložijo en zahtevek za izvozno dovoljenje na teden.
The quantity applied for in respect of each export licence shall not exceed 20000 tonnes in the case of sugar and 5000 tonnes in the case of isoglucose.
Zahtevana količina za vsako izvozno dovoljenje ne presega 20000 ton za sladkor in 5000 ton za izoglukozo.