natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In these circumstances, there are no grounds to consider that the profit margin used would exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin within the meaning of Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
V teh razmerah ni podlage za sklep, da bi bila uporabljena stopnja dobička višja od običajnega dobička drugih izvoznikov ali proizvajalcev izdelkov iste splošne kategorije na notranjem trgu države izvora v smislu člena 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The Union industry objected to the above approach with regard to the determination of SG&A and profits and claimed the applicant’s own SG&A should have been used.
Industrija Skupnosti je nasprotovala navedenemu pristopu v zvezi z določitvijo PSA-stroškov in dobička ter trdila, da bi bilo treba uporabiti lastne PSA-stroške vložnika.
However, Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation sets out that the amounts for SG&A and profits shall only be based on actual data pertaining to the production and sale of the exporting producer concerned, when these sales were made in the ordinary course of trade.
Vendar člen 2(6) osnovne uredbe določa, da zneski za PSA-stroške in dobičke temeljijo le na dejanskih podatkih glede proizvodnje in prodaje, ki ju ima zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik, kadar je bila prodaja opravljena v običajnem poteku trgovine.
As outlined above in recitals (35) and (36), this was not the case because the applicant had no domestic sales in Russia of the like product.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 35 in 36 to ni držalo, saj vložnik ni imel domače prodaje podobnega izdelka v Rusiji.
Therefore this argument had to be rejected.
To trditev je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting country to the Union.
Izvozna cena je bila določena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe, tj. na podlagi cene, dejansko plačane ali plačljive za izdelek, ko je bil prodan za izvoz iz države izvoznice v Skupnost.
Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, handling, loading and ancillary costs and indirect taxes where applicable and supported by verified evidence.
V skladu s tem in kjer je bilo to primerno ter podprto s preverjenimi dokazi, so bile izvedene prilagoditve za razlike v prevoznih, manipulativnih, nakladalnih in drugih tozadevnih stroških ter posrednih davkih.
Export sales of the applicant during the RIP were made via Agronova, the related trader located in the USA.
Izvoz vložnika med OPP je potekal prek Agronove, povezanega trgovca s sedežem v ZDA.
The investigation has shown that the functions of the related company are solely restricted to finding customers and negotiating sales contracts.
S preiskavo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila naloga povezane družbe omejena na iskanje kupcev in sklepanje prodajnih pogodb.
The verification revealed that Agronova’s accounts did not fully reflect the totality of its operations and there were indications that although no transaction-linked commissions were paid to the company, compensation for its activities was given in other forms.
S preveritvijo je bilo ugotovljeno, da računovodske evidence Agronove niso prikazovale vseh transakcij, hkrati pa je bilo možno sklepati, da družba sicer ni prejemala provizije v zvezi s transakcijami, je pa prejemala plačilo za svoje dejavnosti v drugačni obliki.
For these reasons Agronova’s functions were considered to be similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis.
Zato se je štelo, da so bile naloge Agronove podobne nalogam zastopnika, ki za svoje delo prejema provizijo.
The export price was therefore adjusted by a notional commission corresponding to a trader’s usual mark-up in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.
Izvozna cena je bila zato v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe prilagojena za fiktivno provizijo, ki ustreza običajnemu dobičku trgovca.
The applicant claimed that the export price should not have been adjusted by a notional commission in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation for sales made via its related company in the USA since this company allegedly performed functions identical to those of a fully integrated export sales department and should therefore not be treated as an agent working on commission basis.
Vložnik je trdil, da izvozna cena ne bi smela biti prilagojena za fiktivno provizijo v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe za prodajo, ki je potekala prek njegove povezane družbe v ZDA, saj je ta družba domnevno opravljala iste naloge kot popolnoma integriran oddelek za izvoz in da se zato ne sme obravnavati kot zastopnik, ki za svoje delo prejema provizijo.
This could not be confirmed by the present investigation which revealed that concerning the functions and the way the related company is compensated for its activities by the applicant, the related company should rather be considered as an agent working on commission basis.
S to preiskavo tega ni bilo mogoče potrditi, izkazalo pa se je, da je treba povezano družbo šteti kot zastopnika, ki za svoje delo prejema provizijo, glede na naloge te družbe in načina plačila, ki ga je prejemala od vložnika.
This comparison showed a dumping margin of 22,9 %, expressed as a percentage of the CIF frontier price, duty unpaid.
Ta primerjava je pokazala, da je stopnja dampinga 22,9 %, izražena kot odstotek cene CIF meja Skupnosti, dajatev neplačana.
It is reminded that, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation and as outlined in recital (49) of Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000, the definitive duty in the original investigation was established at the level of the injury margin found, which was lower than the dumping margin because it was found that such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry.
Spomniti je treba, da je bila v skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe in kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 49 Uredbe (ES) št. 1995/2000, dokončna dajatev v prvotni preiskavi določena v višini ugotovljene stopnje škode, ki je bila nižja od stopnje dampinga, saj je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi bila takšna nižja dajatev ustrezna za odpravo škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Skupnosti.
In the light of the foregoing, the duty established in this review should not be higher than the injury margin.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega dajatev, določena v tem pregledu, ne sme biti višja od stopnje škode.
Since the latter was lower than the dumping margin found in the present investigation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed for the applicant at the level of the injury margin found in the original investigation.
Ker je bila slednja nižja od stopnje dampinga, ugotovljene s sedanjo preiskavo, je treba za vložnika uvesti dokončno protidampinško dajatev na ravni stopnje škode, ugotovljene v prvotni preiskavi.
Regarding the form of the measure, it was considered that the amended anti-dumping duty should take the same form as the duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1995/2000.
Glede na obliko ukrepa se je sklenilo, da mora spremenjena protidampinška dajatev biti iste vrste kot dajatve, uvedene z Uredbo (ES) št. 1995/2000.
To ensure efficiency of the measures and to discourage price manipulation it was appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per tonne.
Za zagotovitev učinkovitost ukrepov in odvračanje od manipulacije s cenami, je primerno uvesti dajatev v obliki določenega zneska na tono.
As a result, the anti-dumping duty to be imposed on imports of the product concerned produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant, calculated on the basis of the injury margin as established in the original investigation expressed as a specific amount per tonne, should be EUR 20,11 per tonne.
Posledično je treba za uvoz zadevnega izdelka, ki ga vložnik proizvaja in prodaja za izvoz v Skupnost, uvesti protidampinško dajatev 20,11 EUR na tono, izračunano na podlagi stopnje škode, kakor je bila ugotovljena v prvotni preiskavi, ter izraženo v določenem znesku na tono.
In the light of the above findings, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant shall be levied retroactively from the date of initiation of the review on imports of the product concerned which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 241/2009.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve se protidampinška dajatev, ki se uporablja za vložnika, obračuna retroaktivno od datuma začetka pregleda za uvoz zadevnega izdelka, za katerega velja obveznost registracije v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 241/2009.
The applicant and other parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to reimpose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of UAN originating, inter alia, in Russia and produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant and to levy this duty retroactively on imports made subject to registration.
Vložnik in druge zadevne stranke so bili obveščeni o osnovnih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se namerava ponovno uvesti dokončna protidampinška dajatev na uvoz SAN s poreklom, med drugim, iz Rusije, ki jih proizvaja in prodaja za izvoz v Skupnost vložnik, dajatev na uvoz, za katerega je bila uvedena obveznost registracije, pa obračunati retroaktivno.
All parties were given an opportunity to comment.
Vse stranke so imele možnost predložiti pripombe.
This review does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe ta pregled ne vpliva na datum prenehanja veljavnosti ukrepov, ki so bili uvedeni z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1911/2006.
Following final disclosure the applicant offered an undertaking in accordance with Article 8 of the basic Regulation.
Po končnem razkritju je vložnik ponudil zavezo v skladu s členom 8 osnovne uredbe.
The applicant stated that the offer would be based on the reasonable expectation that some of its claims made following the final disclosure would be accepted and would result in a minimum import price workable for the applicant.
Vložnik je navedel, da bo ponudba temeljila na razumnem pričakovanju, da bodo nekatere njegove trditve, predložene po končnem razkritju, sprejete, kar bo privedlo do določitve minimalne uvozne cene, ki bo zanj sprejemljiva.
Since, however, none of the comments raised by the applicant were found to be warranted and since the applicant appears not interested to offer a minimum import price based on the injury elimination level established in the original investigation, any further detailed analysis of the undertaking offer as to its acceptance was considered unnecessary,
Ker pa za nobeno pripombo vložnika ni bilo ugotovljeno, da je upravičena, in ker se zdi, da vložnik ni zainteresiran za ponudbo minimalne uvozne cene na podlagi stopnje odprave škode, določene v prvotni preiskavi, se je štelo, da je podrobnejša proučitev ponudbe zaveze glede na njeno sprejemljivost, nepotrebna -
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
SPREJEL NASLEDNJO UREDBO
The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Preglednica iz člena 1(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1911/2006 se spremeni, tako da se doda naslednje:
(per tonne)
(na tono)
The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 241/2009.
Dajatev, ki se s tem uvaja, je treba tudi zaračunati retroaktivno za uvoz mešanice sečnine in amonijevega nitrata v vodni ali amoniakalni raztopini, ki je bil registriran v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 241/2009.
The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution originating in Russia produced and sold for export to the Union by Joint Stock Company Acron.
Carinskim organom se dajo navodila za prenehanje registracije uvoza mešanice sečnine in amonijevega nitrata v vodni ali amoniakalni raztopini s poreklom iz Rusije, ki jo proizvaja in prodaja za izvoz v Skupnost delniška družba Acron.
OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
UL L 56, 6.3.1996, str. 1. Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2117/2005 (UL L 340, 23.12.2005, str. 17).
OJ L 75, 21.3.2009, p. 5.
UL L 75, 21.3.2009, str. 5.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1252/2009
Izvedbena Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 1252/2009
concluding the new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of chamois leather originating in the People's Republic of China, levying retroactively and imposing an anti-dumping duty with regard to imports from one exporter in this country and terminating the registration of these imports
o zaključku pregleda glede „novega izvoznika“ v okviru Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1338/2006 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz semiš usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, retroaktivnem obračunavanju dajatve in uvedbi protidampinške dajatve na uvoz od enega izvoznika iz te države ter zaključku registracije takšnega uvoza
Having regard to the proposal submitted from the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je Komisija predložila po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom,
By Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 [2], the Council, following an investigation (‘the original investigation’), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of chamois leather originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’).
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1338/2006 [2] po preiskavi („prvotna preiskava“) uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz semiš usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“).
The measures in force consist of an ad valorem definitive country-wide duty rate of 58,9 %.
Veljavni ukrepi zajemajo dokončno stopnjo dajatve ad valorem na ravni države v višini 58,9 %.
Subsequent to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measures, the Commission received a request for a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je po uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve prejela zahtevek za pregled glede „novega izvoznika“ v skladu s členom 11(4) osnovne uredbe.
The request was based on the claim that the exporting producer, Henan Prosper Skins and Leather Enterprise Co. Ltd. (‘the applicant’):
Zahtevek je temeljil na trditvi, da proizvajalec izvoznik, družba Henan Prosper Skins and Leather Enterprise Co. Ltd. („vložnik“):
did not export chamois leather before or during the investigation period of the original investigation;
ni izvažal semiš usnja pred obdobjem prvotne preiskave ali med njo,
was not related to any of the exporting producers subject to the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006;
ni bil povezan z nobenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za katerega veljajo ukrepi, uvedeni z Uredbo (ES) št. 1338/2006,
had started to export chamois leather to the Union after the end of the investigation period of the original investigation;
da je ta proizvajalec izvoznik semiš usnje v Skupnost začel izvažati po koncu obdobja prvotne preiskave,
operates under market economy conditions as defined in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation or alternatively claims individual treatment in conformity with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
da deluje pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe oziroma zahteva individualno obravnavo v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Regulation (EC) No 573/2009 [3], a review of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 with regard to the applicant.
Po tem, ko se je Komisija posvetovala s svetovalnim odborom in zadevni industriji Unije dala možnost za pripombe, je z Uredbo (ES) št. 573/2009 [3] začela pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 1338/2006 v zvezi z vložnikom.
Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation 573/2009, the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 on imports of chamois leather produced by the applicant was repealed.
Protidampinška dajatev, uvedena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1338/2006 na uvoz semiš usnja, ki jo proizvaja vložnik, je bila razveljavljena v skladu s členom 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 573/2009.
Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register the imports of chamois leather produced by the applicant.
Hkrati so carinski organi v skladu s členom 14(5) osnovne uredbe dobili navodilo, da izvedejo ustrezne ukrepe za registracijo uvoza semiš usnja, ki jo proizvaja vložnik.
The product concerned by the current review is chamois leather as defined in the original investigation, i.e. chamois leather and combination chamois leather, whether or not cut to shape, including crust chamois and combination crust chamois leather (‘chamois leather’) originating in the People's Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes 41141010 and 41141090.
Zadevni izdelek iz tega pregleda je semiš usnje, opredeljeno v prvotni preiskavi, tj. semiš usnje in kombinacija semiš usnja, vključno rezan v oblike, vključno s „crust“ semiš usnjem in kombinacijo „crust“ semiš usnja („semiš usnje“) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki se uvršča pod oznaki KN 41141010 in 41141090.
The Commission officially advised the Union industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review.
Komisija je industrijo Unije, vložnika in predstavnike države izvoznice uradno obvestila o začetku pregleda.
The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Preiskava dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. julija 2008 do 30. junija 2009 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
WITHDRAWAL OF COOPERATION AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A NEW EXPORTER REVIEW
PRENEHANJE SODELOVANJA IN UMIK ZAHTEVKA ZA PREGLED GLEDE „NOVEGA IZVOZNIKA“
The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadlines set.
Komisija je vložniku poslala vprašalnik in v določenem roku prejela odgovor.
During the verification of the applicant's questionnaire reply at their premises, the applicant provided false and misleading information within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je med preverjanjem odgovorov na vprašalnik v njegovih prostorih predložil napačne in zavajajoče informacije v smislu člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, the applicant decided to cease cooperation altogether and the verification had to be terminated without being completed.
Poleg tega se je vložnik odločil v celoti prekiniti sodelovanje, preverjanje pa je bilo treba predčasno zaključiti.
On 21 September 2009, the applicant formally withdrew its application for a new exporter review.
Vložnik je 21. septembra 2009 uradno umaknil zahtevek za pregled glede „novega izvoznika“.
The applicant was informed that the information supplied by it could not be considered reliable and would be rejected and was invited to provide further explanations within a given deadline in accordance with Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je bil obveščen, da se informacije, ki jih je predložil, ne morejo šteti za zanesljive in bi se zato zavrnile, ter pozvan, da v roku iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe predloži dodatna pojasnila.
The applicant did not supply any further explanation.
Vložnik dodatnih pojasnil ni predložil.
In the above circumstances, despite the withdrawal of the application, it was considered appropriate to continue the investigation ex officio and base findings with regard to the applicant on facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
V navedenih okoliščinah se je kljub umiku zahtevka zdelo primerno, da se preiskava nadaljuje po uradni dolžnosti ter da ugotovitve v zvezi z vložnikom temeljijo na dostopnih dejstvih v smislu člena 18 osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of other information, the duty rate to be applied to the applicant is set at the level of the country-wide duty.
Stopnja dajatve za vložnika se zaradi pomanjkanja drugih informacij določi na ravni države.
CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
ZAKLJUČEK PREISKAVE IN RETROAKTIVNO OBRAČUNAVANJE PROTIDAMPINŠKE DAJATVE
In the light of the above findings, it was concluded that imports into the Union of chamois leather and combination chamois leather, whether or not cut to shape, including crust chamois leather and combination crust chamois leather, currently falling within CN codes 41141010 and 41141090, originating in the People's Republic of China, produced and sold for export to the Union by Henan Prosper Skins & Leather Enterprise Co. Ltd. (TARIC additional code A957) should be subject to an anti-dumping duty at the level of the antidumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 on all companies in the People's Republic of China and that that rate of anti-dumping duty should be re-imposed and levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned, which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 573/2009.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve je bilo sklenjeno, da mora za uvoz v Unijo semiš usnja in kombinacije semiš usnja, vključno rezan v oblike, vključno s „crust“ semiš usnjem in kombinacijo „crust“ semiš usnja („semiš usnje“), ki se uvršča pod oznaki KN 41141010 in 41141090, s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki ga proizvaja in prodaja za izvoz v Unijo družba Henan Prosper Skins & Leather Enterprise Co., Ltd (dodatna oznaka TARIC A957), veljati protidampinška dajatev v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1338/2006 za vse družbe v Ljudski republiki Kitajski ter da se mora stopnja protidampinške dajatve ponovno uvesti in retroaktivno obračunati za uvoz zadevnega proizvoda, za katerega velja obveznost registracije v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 573/2009.
The applicant, the Union industry and the representatives of the exporting country were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were given an opportunity to comment.
Vložnik, industrija Unije in predstavniki države izvoznice so bili obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, ki vodijo do zgoraj navedenih sklepov, dana pa jim je bila tudi možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
No comments of a nature as to warrant a change of the above conclusions were received.
Prejete niso bile nobene pripombe, zaradi katerih bi se spremenili zgoraj navedeni sklepi.
This review does not affect the date on which the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,
V skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe ta pregled ne vpliva na datum prenehanja veljavnosti ukrepov, ki so bili uvedeni z Uredbo (ES) št. 1338/2006 –
The new exporter review initiated by Regulation (EC) No 573/2009 is hereby concluded, and an anti-dumping duty set at the level of the anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2006 to all companies in the People's Republic of China is hereby imposed on imports identified in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 573/2009.
Pregled glede novega izvoznika, začet z Uredbo (ES) št. 573/2009, se s tem zaključi, protidampinška dajatev, ki se v skladu s členom 1(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1338/2006 uporablja za vse družbe v Ljudski republiki Kitajski, pa se uvede na uvoz iz člena 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 573/2009.