natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[Commission guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013 [13]]; in this case, it is hereby confirmed that the aid fulfils the conditions set out in Commission guidelines on national regional aid for 2007–2013 (in this case, the assessment of such aid is to be carried out on the basis of the Guidelines on National Regional aid.
[Smernice Komisije o državni regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013 [13]]; v tem primeru potrjujemo, da: pomoč izpolnjuje pogoje iz Smernic Komisije o državni regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013 (v tem primeru se ocena takšne pomoči izvaja na podlagi Smernic o državni regionalni pomoči.
[Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008]; in this case, it is hereby confirmed that:
[člen 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 800/2008]; v tem primeru potrjujemo, da:
[Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008]; in this case, it is hereby confirmed that:
[člen 13 Uredbe (ES) št. 800/2008]; v tem primeru potrjujemo, da:
[aid for intermediate companies in regions not eligible for regional aid]; in this case:
[pomoč za srednje velika podjetja v regijah, ki niso upravičene do regionalne pomoči]; v tem primeru:
Council Regulation (EC) No 703/2009
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 703/2009
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of wire rod originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of wire rod originating in the Republic of Moldova and Turkey
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz valjane žice s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ter zaključku postopka v zvezi z uvozom valjane žice s poreklom iz Republike Moldavije in Turčije
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske Skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 112/2009 [2] (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of wire rod originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of Moldova (RM).
Komisija je z Uredbo (ES) št. 112/2009 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz valjane žice s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske (LRK) in Republike Moldavije (RM).
It is noted that the proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by Eurofer (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Community production of wire rod.
Spomniti je treba, da je bil postopek uveden na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je vložila družba Eurofer (pritožnik) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo glavni delež, v tem primeru več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje valjane žice v Skupnosti.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev za uvedbo začasnih protidampinških ukrepov (začasno razkritje), je več zainteresiranih strank predložilo pisna stališča v zvezi z začasnimi ugotovitvami.
To this end an additional verification visit was carried out at the following company:
Zato je bil opravljen dodaten preveritveni obisk v naslednji družbi:
Producer in the Community:
Proizvajalec v Skupnosti:
Celsa UK Holding Limited, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Celsa UK Holding Limited, Cardiff, Združeno kraljestvo
The Commission also continued its investigation with regard to Community interest aspects and carried out analysis of data contained in the questionnaire replies provided by some users in the Community.
Komisija je nadaljevala preiskavo v zvezi z vidiki interesa Skupnosti in analizirala podatke iz izpolnjenih vprašalnikov, ki so jih predložili nekateri uporabniki v Skupnosti.
It is recalled that as set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008 (investigation period or IP).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (13) začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2007 do 31. marca 2008 (obdobje preiskave ali OP).
With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 2004 to the end of the IP (period considered).
V zvezi z gibanji, pomembnimi za oceno škode, je Komisija analizirala podatke za obdobje od leta 2004 do konca OP (obravnavano obdobje).
Some interested parties argued that the choice of the year 2004 which was taken into account for the injury assessment was flawed because allegedly the year 2004 was an exceptionally good year in terms of high demand and profit margins.
Nekatere zainteresirane stranke so trdile, da je bilo leto 2004, ki se je upoštevalo za oceno škode, napačna izbira, ker naj bi bilo glede na povpraševanje in stopnje dobička to izjemno uspešno leto.
They therefore claimed that 2004 should be excluded from the period considered.
Zato so trdile, da je treba leto 2004 izvzeti iz obravnavanega obdobja.
In the present proceeding this practice was applied.
Ta praksa je bila uporabljena tudi pri sedanjem postopku.
Therefore, whether the year 2004, or any other year falling within the period considered, was exceptional or not does not seem to be relevant to the choice of this period.
Zato se vprašanje, ali je bilo 2004 ali kakšno drugo leto v obravnavanem obdobju izjemno ali ne, za izbiro tega obdobja ne zdi relevantno.
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of wire rod originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty, and the termination of the proceeding concerning imports of wire rod originating in the RM and Turkey.
Vse stranke so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih naj bi se priporočila uvedba dokončnih protidampinških dajatev na uvoz valjane žice s poreklom iz LRK in dokončnega pobiranja zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo, ter zaključek postopka v zvezi z uvozom valjane žice s poreklom iz RM in Turčije.
They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
Določen je bil tudi rok, v katerem so po tem razkritju lahko predložile svoja stališča.
The product concerned is bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron, non-alloy steel or alloy steel other than of stainless steel originating in the PRC, the RM and Turkey (the product concerned or wire rod), normally declared within CN codes 72131000, 72132000, 72139110, 72139120, 72139141, 72139149, 72139170, 72139190, 72139910, 72139990, 72271000, 72272000, 72279010, 72279050 and 72279095.
Zadevni izdelek je žica, vroče valjana, v ohlapnih kolobarjih, iz železa, nelegiranega jekla ali legiranega jekla, razen iz nerjavnega jekla, s poreklom iz LRK, RM in Turčije (zadevni izdelek ali valjana žica), navadno uvrščena pod oznake KN 72131000, 72132000, 72139110, 72139120, 72139141, 72139149, 72139170, 72139190, 72139910, 72139990, 72271000, 72272000, 72279010, 72279050 in 72279095.
Following the provisional disclosure, one interested party claimed that wire rod falling under CN code 72139190 should not be included in the definition of the product concerned because the powers of attorney issued to the complainant and its legal representative did not cover this specific product type.
Po začasnem razkritju je ena zainteresirana stranka trdila, da valjana žica, uvrščena pod oznako KN 72139190, ne sme biti vključena v opredelitev zadevnega izdelka, saj v pooblastilu za pritožnika in njegovega zakonitega zastopnika ta posebna vrsta izdelka ni bila zajeta.
In this respect it should be noted, firstly, that the complaint included the abovementioned CN code.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je pritožba zajemala zgoraj navedeno oznako KN.
Secondly, the product concerned is defined, at the outset of the investigation, based primarily on the basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics.
Poleg tega se zadevni izdelek opredeli na začetku preiskave predvsem na podlagi fizikalnih, kemičnih in tehničnih značilnosti.
The relevant CN codes under which imports of the product concerned are declared are finally determined only during the investigation, and in particular when imposing final duties.
Zadevne oznake KN, pod katerimi se prijavi uvoz zadevnega izdelka, se dokončno določijo šele med preiskavo in zlasti pri uvedbi dokončnih dajatev.
This is also clear from the text of the notice of initiation which states that the relevant CN codes are only given for information [3].
To je jasno razvidno tudi iz obvestila o začetku, v katerem je navedeno, da so zadevne oznake KN samo informativne [3].
In addition, it was concluded that the wire rod declared under the above mentioned CN code does have the basic characteristics which are set out in the notice of initiation, and that it therefore does fall within the scope of the product concerned.
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da valjana žica, prijavljena pod zgoraj navedeno oznako KN, dejansko ima osnovne lastnosti, navedene v obvestilu o začetku, in da zato dejansko spada v obseg zadevnega izdelka.
Consequently this claim was rejected.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
One exporting producer and one user alleged that a specific type of wire rod, namely ‘tire cord’, classified under the CN code 72139120, would differ significantly from other types of wire rod with respect to the physical and technical characteristics, end uses, interchangeability and consumer perceptions.
En proizvajalec izvoznik in en uporabnik sta trdila, da se posebna vrsta valjane žice, in sicer „tyre cord“, uvrščena pod oznako KN 72139120, zelo razlikuje od drugih vrst valjane žice glede na njene fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti, končne uporabe, zamenljivost in zaznavanje potrošnikov.
Consequently, they claimed that tire cord should be excluded from the scope of this investigation.
Zato sta trdila, da žica tyre cord ne sme biti vključena v preiskavo.
The abovementioned claim and specific arguments have been analysed in detail.
Navedena trditev in posebni argumenti so bili natančno analizirani.
Firstly, it was established that the different types of wire rod, including tire cord, included in the product definition share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics, which means that they belong to the same product category.
Prvič, ugotovljeno je bilo, da imajo različne vrste valjane žice, vključno s „tyre cord“, ki so vključene v opredelitev izdelka, iste osnovne fizikalne, kemijske in tehnične značilnosti, kar pomeni, da spadajo v isto kategorijo izdelkov.
Secondly, even if it can be argued that tire cord is a relatively more sophisticated and expensive type compared to other types of wire rod covered within the scope of the current investigation, it does not mean that tire cords imported from the PRC have characteristics which are significantly different from tire cords produced in the Community.
Drugič, tudi če je mogoče trditi, da je vrsta tyre cord nekoliko bolj sofisticirana in dražja v primerjavi z drugimi vrstami valjane žice, ki so zajete v sedanji preiskavi, to ne pomeni, da imajo žice tyre cord, uvožene iz LRK, značilnosti, ki se znatno razlikujejo od tistih, ki so proizvedene v Skupnosti.
Furthermore the investigation showed that there were imports of tire cord from the country concerned during the period considered.
Poleg tega je preiskava pokazala, da je obstajal uvoz žice tyre cord iz zadevne države med obravnavanim obdobjem.
Although these imports were made in limited quantities, it showed that exporting producers concerned by the current investigation had the capability to produce this type of wire rod.
Čeprav je bila količina uvoza omejena, se je pokazalo, da so bili proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so zajeti v sedanji preiskavi, sposobni proizvesti to vrsto valjane žice.
Hence, based on the above facts and considerations, the exclusion of tire cord from the scope of the investigation was not considered to be warranted.
Na podlagi dejstev in premislekov se je štelo, da izključitev žice tyre cord iz preiskave ni bila utemeljena.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the product concerned or the like product, recitals (13) to (14) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
V zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom ali podobnim izdelkom ni bilo drugih pripomb, zato se potrdijo uvodne izjave (13) in (14) začasne uredbe.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the MET status of Chinese exporting producers, the conclusions of recitals (27) to (31) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb glede statusa TGO kitajskih izvoznikov, se potrdijo ugotovitve uvodnih izjav (27) do (31) začasne uredbe.
It is recalled that the sole cooperating Moldovan exporter failed to meet any of the five MET criteria.
Opozarja se, da edini sodelujoči izvoznik iz Moldavije ni izpolnil nobenega od petih meril za TGO.
Following the provisional disclosure, the company reiterated its previous comments on the Commission’s decision not to grant it MET, which had already been analysed and addressed in the MET and provisional disclosures.
Po začasnem razkritju je družba ponovila svoje predhodne pripombe k odločitvi Komisije, da ne odobri TGO, ki so bile že analizirane in obravnavane v ugotovitvah glede TGO in začasnih razkritjih.
The Moldovan exporter disputed the findings regarding all five MET criteria, but did not support its claims by providing any evidence in support thereof.
Moldavski izvoznik je nasprotoval ugotovitvam glede vseh petih meril TGO, vendar svojih trditev ni podprl z dokazi.
In particular, the exporter claims that the Commission contradicts itself when considering that the so called authorities of the Transnistrian region of the RM are considered as playing the role of ‘the State’ when assessing criterion 1, and not so when assessing criterion 4.
Izvoznik je trdil, da Komisija sama sebi nasprotuje, ko pri ocenjevanju merila 1 šteje, da tako imenovani organi pridnestrske regije RM opravljajo vlogo države, česar pa ne upošteva pri merilu 4.
In this respect, it is noted that the so called authorities of the Transnistrian region of the RM are clearly in a position to interfere in the company’s management.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da se tako imenovani organi pridnestrske regije v RM očitno lahko vmešavajo v vodenje družbe.
Therefore this has a direct impact in the assessment of criterion 1.
Zato ima to neposredni učinek pri oceni merila 1.
On the other hand, the so called authorities of the Transnistrian region of the RM, as they are not recognised, do not ensure a legal stability and certainty as required under criterion 4.
Po drugi stani pa tako imenovani organi pridnestrske regije RM niso priznani in tako ne zagotavljajo pravne stabilnosti in gotovosti, kot je zahtevana v okviru merila 4.
Regarding criterion 1, the exporter argued, in particular, that its management is composed of private persons and that no connection has been established between its top management and the so called authorities of the Transnistrian region of the RM.
V zvezi z merilom 1 je izvoznik trdil, da njegovo poslovodstvo sestavljajo fizične osebe in da ni bila ugotovljena nikakršna povezava med najvišjim vodstvom ter tako imenovanimi organi pridnestrske regije RM.
However, the investigation revealed that the President and other management staff of the company actively participate in the legislative bodies of the so called authorities of the Transnistrian region of the RM.
Vendar je preiskava pokazala, da predsednik in drugo vodstveno osebje družbe aktivno delujejo v zakonodajnih organih tako imenovanih organov pridnestrske regije RM.
Regarding criterion 2 the company argued, in particular, that the reserved opinion of the audit report on the company’s financial statements was immaterial.
V zvezi z merilom 2 je družba zlasti trdila, da je pridržek pri mnenju revizijskega poročila o finančnih izkazih družbe nepomemben.
However, this reserved opinion refers to the value of all fixed assets and cannot therefore be considered as immaterial.
Vendar se to mnenje s pridržkom nanaša na vsa osnovna sredstva in se zato ne more šteti za nepomembno.
During the verification the company was not able to clarify this reserve.
Med preveritvijo družba ni mogla pojasniti tega pridržka.
Regarding criterion 3, the company repeated its argument that, following its privatisation, it was subsequently re-sold to its current holders at arm’s length and therefore any previous distortions would have been eliminated.
V zvezi z merilom 3 je družba ponovila svoj argument, da je bila po privatizaciji ponovno prodana svojim sedanjim lastnikom po tržni ceni, zato prejšnjega izkrivljanja ni več.
No evidence supporting this claim was however provided and the conclusion in recital (45) of the provisional Regulation is therefore confirmed.
Vendar niso bili predloženi nikakršni dokazi v podporo tem trditvam, zato se potrdi sklepna ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave (45) začasne uredbe.
Regarding criterion 5, the company, claimed in particular that the fact that its financial statements are in US dollars, and not in the so called Transnistrian rouble currency (TMR rouble) makes the issue irrelevant.
V zvezi z merilom 5 je družba trdila, je vprašanje nepomembno, ker so njeni računovodski izkazi v ameriških dolarjih in ne v tako imenovani valuti pridnestrskih rubljev (rublji PMR).
However, the fact remains that the TMR rouble is used in several of the company’s daily operations, and therefore the conversion rate of the TMR rouble into other currencies is not irrelevant for assessment under this criterion.
Vendar ostaja dejstvo, da se rubelj PMR uporablja v številnih vsakodnevnih dejavnostih družbe, zato je pretvorbena stopnja tečaja rublja v druge valute za oceno v okviru tega merila relevantna.
Therefore these claims did not change the provisional conclusions not to grant MET to the Moldovan cooperating exporting producer, and the conclusions of recitals (32) to (49) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Zato te trditve niso spremenile začasnih sklepnih ugotovitev, da se moldavskemu proizvajalcu izvozniku ne odobri TGO, in sklepne ugotovitve uvodnih izjav (32) do (49) začasne uredbe se potrdijo.
In the absence of any comments on IT, recitals (50) to (53) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb glede IO, se uvodne izjave od (50) do (53) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
One exporting producer pointed out that revised and verified data regarding its domestic sales had not been taken into consideration in the establishment of normal value.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je poudaril, da revidirani in preverjeni podatki glede njegove domače prodaje niso bili upoštevani pri določitvi normalne vrednosti.
Another exporting producer argued that the constructed normal value had been incorrectly calculated due to a clerical error.
Nek drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je bil izračun konstruirane normalne vrednosti napačen zaradi pisarniške napake.
These claims were verified and corrections were made, when appropriate.
Te trditve so bile preverjene in napake so bile popravljene, kjer je bilo to potrebno.
Another exporting producer argued that its export sales consisted only of a ‘non-standard’ type of the product concerned, whereas domestic sales were a mix of ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ types.
Spet drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da njegov izvoz zajema le „nestandardno“ vrsto zadevnega izdelka, domačo prodajo pa sestavljajo tako „standardne“ kot „nestandardne“ vrste.
It claimed that this methodology resulted in an unfair comparison and that the normal value should be calculated by comparing only the prices of ‘non-standard’ export and domestic sales.
Trdil je, da je zaradi te metodologije ta primerjava nepoštena in da bi morala biti normalna vrednost izračunana s primerjavo cen le „nestandardnega“ izvoza in domače prodaje.
The investigation, however, could not demonstrate sufficient differences between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ products, as claimed by the exporting producer, that would affect their comparability.
S preiskavo pa niso bile dokazane zadostne razlike med „standardnimi“ in „nestandardnimi“ izdelki, kot jih navaja proizvajalec izvoznik, ki bi vplivale na njihovo primerljivost.
Both categories fall under the product description of the like product.
Obe kategoriji spadata v opis podobnega izdelka.
Additionally the investigation revealed that both types were sold by the company at the same price.
Poleg tega je preiskava razkrila, da je družba obe vrsti prodajala po isti ceni.
Accordingly, this claim had to be disregarded.
Zato tega zahtevka ni bilo mogoče upoštevati.
In the absence of any other comments with regard to the methodology for calculating normal value for Turkey, the provisional conclusions as outlined in recitals (54) to (63) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb glede metodologije za izračun normalne vrednosti za Turčijo, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav (54) do (63) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
No comments were received concerning the normal value for the PRC and the RM established as described in recital (64) of the provisional Regulation.
V zvezi z normalno vrednostjo za LRK in RM, kot je opisana v uvodni izjavi (64) začasne uredbe, ni bilo prejetih nobenih pripomb.
Therefore the provisional conclusions are confirmed.
Zato se potrdijo začasne sklepne ugotovitve.
Turkey was provisionally chosen as analogue country for the reasons set out in recitals (65) to (74) of the provisional Regulation.
Turčija je bila začasno izbrana za primerljivo državo iz razlogov iz uvodnih izjav (65) do (74) začasne uredbe.
Following provisional disclosure, the complainant, argued against the use of Turkey as analogue country, instead of Brazil as initially envisaged.
Po začasnem razkritju je pritožnik, nasprotoval uporabi Turčije kot primerljive države namesto prvotno načrtovane Brazilije.
The complainant re-stated the arguments submitted at the provisional stage (a) claiming that there is sufficient competition in the Brazilian market and (b) alleging that the subsidisation of the Turkish steel industry makes it inappropriate for establishing normal value.
Pritožnik je ponovil argumente iz začasne faze, da je (a) na brazilskem trgu zadostna konkurenca in (b) da je zaradi subvencioniranja turške jeklarske industrije Turčija neprimerna za določanje normalne vrednosti.
Moreover, the complainant argued that since the investigation has established the existence of dumping for Turkey, as per the Commission’s practice it should not be used as analogue country.
Poleg tega je pritožnik trdil, da je bil v Turčiji s preiskavo ugotovljen obstoj dampinga, zato v skladu s prakso Komisije ne bi smela biti uporabljena kot primerljiva država.
It is recalled that the domestic prices in Brazil were found to be above published world prices.
Opominja se, da je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile domače cene v Braziliji višje od objavljenih svetovnih cen.
Also, the level of profits of the Brazilian producer in the domestic market was found to be very high compared, in particular, with the level of profit considered reasonable for the Community industry.
Tudi za stopnjo dobička brazilskega proizvajalca na domačem trgu je bilo ugotovljeno, da je zelo visoka, zlasti v primerjavi s stopnjo dobička, ki se je štela za razumno pri industriji Skupnosti.
As stated in the provisional Regulation, this is considered as an indication of the insufficient level of competition in the Brazilian market.
Kot je bilo navedeno v začasni uredbi, se to šteje za dokaz nezadostne ravni konkurence na brazilskem trgu.