natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In view of the foregoing the proceeding concerning imports originating in Turkey should be terminated.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba postopek glede uvoza iz Turčije končati.
UKRAINE (i): ARTICLE 11(3) ASPECTS
UKRAJINA (i): VIDIKI ČLENA 11(3)
The Interpipe Group alleged that a comparison of normal value based on its own costs/domestic prices and its export prices to a third country market comparable to the EU, would lead to a reduction of dumping significantly below the level of the current measures.
Skupina Interpipe je trdila, da bi primerjava normalne vrednosti na podlagi lastnih stroškov/cen na domačem trgu in izvoznih cen na trg tretje države, primerljiv z EU, privedla do zmanjšanja dampinga znatno pod ravnjo trenutnih ukrepov.
Therefore, it is alleged that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level was no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Zato naj nadaljevanje ukrepa na sedanji ravni za izravnavanje dampinga ne bi bilo več potrebno.
During the course of the investigation, the company was notified of the Commission's intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Med preiskavo je bila družba obveščena o tem, da namerava Komisija uporabiti člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
This was because the company did not provide cost of production data in the product type (product control number (PCN)) format required.
Razlog je bil v tem, da družba ni predložila podatkov o proizvodnih stroških v zahtevani obliki za vrsto izdelka (številčna oznaka izdelka (PCN)).
The company only submitted cost of production data as an average of all the product types produced in a specific workshop.
Družba je predložila le podatke o proizvodnih stroških kot povprečje za vse vrste izdelka, proizvedene v posebni delavnici.
Examination of the facts showed that the cost of production data submitted could not be accepted by the Commission as they would not permit a proper comparison with domestic market selling prices by product type.
Preučitev dejstev je pokazala, da Komisija ni mogla sprejeti predloženih podatkov o proizvodnih stroških, ker ne bi omogočili ustrezne primerjave s prodajnimi cenami na domačem trgu za vrsto izdelka.
The company was notified of the reasons why this was necessary within a reasonable period of time as required by Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Družba je bila o razlogih, zakaj je bilo to potrebno, obveščena v primernem roku, kot to zahteva člen 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
Comments were received, analysed and replied to in detail.
Pripombe so bile prejete in analizirane, v zvezi z njimi pa je bil poslan natančen odgovor.
None of the explanations given by the company was considered to be satisfactory as to allow the Commission to avoid the application of best facts available to the area highlighted below.
Nobena obrazložitev družbe ni zadostovala, da Komisiji ne bi uporabila najboljših dejstev, ki so na voljo za področje, poudarjeno v nadaljevanju.
Following the disclosure, the complainant claimed that the case should be terminated as the cooperation of the sole Ukrainian producer was so poor that the Commission had to use Article 18 of the basic Regulation to adjust the cost of manufacturing.
Po razkritju je pritožnik trdil, da je treba primer končati, ker je bilo sodelovanje edinega ukrajinskega proizvajalca tako šibko, da je Komisija morala za prilagoditev proizvodnih stroškov uporabiti člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
However, it should be noted that Article 18 was applied in order to allow the Commission to complete the information submitted by the sole Ukrainian cooperating producer by using the best information available.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da je bil člen 18 uporabljen zato, da je Komisija lahko informacije, ki jih je predložil edini ukrajinski sodelujoči proizvajalec, dopolnila z najboljšimi razpoložljivimi informacijami.
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 bi za domačo prodajo lahko veljalo, da je bila dosežena v okviru 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 ga proizvajalci izvozniki proizvedejo in prodajo na domačem trgu.
OJSC Interpipe Novomoskovsk Pipe Production Plant (NMPP), which produces the product concerned, failed to provide a breakdown of the cost of production (‘CoP’) by PCN.
Družba OJSC Interpipe Novomoskovsk Pipe Production Plant (NMPP), ki proizvaja zadevni izdelek, ni zagotovila razčlenitve proizvodnih stroškov po PCN.
This exporting producer only provided the average CoP of all the PCNs produced in each of its two workshops.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je zagotovil le povprečne proizvodne stroške vseh PCN, ki so nastali v njegovih dveh delavnicah.
Evidence of the PCNs' cost structure from different producers in other countries concerned by the investigation including the Community showed that there is a large variation in the cost of production per PCN.
Dokazi o strukturi stroškov po PCN, ki zadevajo različne proizvajalce v drugih državah, vključenih v preiskavo, vključno s Skupnostjo, so pokazali, da se proizvodni stroški po posameznih PCN zelo razlikujejo.
OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsk (NTRP) tube rolling plant which is related to NMPP, submitted the break down of the CoP per PCN.
Družba OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsk (NTRP) tube rolling plant, ki je povezana z NMPP, je predložila razčlenitev proizvodnih stroškov po PCN.
As explained in recital 173, the Commission applied Article 18 of the basic Regulation to NMPP to obtain the cost of production by PCN.
Kot pojasnjuje uvodna izjava 173, je Komisija za NMPP uporabila člen 18 osnovne uredbe, da bi dobila proizvodne stroške po PCN.
The option of using data available from the original investigation was considered, but as Ukraine has since been granted market economy status, such data was not considered to be the best information available.
Preučena je bila možnost uporabe razpoložljivih podatkov iz prvotne raziskave, vendar se zato, ker je bil Ukrajini dodeljen status tržnega gospodarstva, taki podatki niso šteli za najboljše razpoložljive informacije.
In addition, the Commission considered that the quality of the information reported by the Community industry was such as would allow conclusions to be drawn on the Cost of Production (CoP) per Product Control Number (PCN).
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da so informacije, ki jih je predložila industrija Skupnosti, kakovostne, zato je bilo mogoče na njihovi podlagi določiti proizvodne stroške (CoP) na kontrolno številko proizvoda (PCN).
Therefore, the information submitted by the cooperating Community industry was considered to be the most reliable and the best information available from which to derive the CoP per PCN.
Zato so se informacije, ki jih je predložila sodelujoča industrija Skupnosti, štele za najzanesljivejše in najboljše razpoložljive informacije, na podlagi katerih se določijo proizvodni stroški na PCN.
In this respect, the findings of the investigation showed that the variances between the cheapest Community industry PCN and all other PCNs could be calculated.
V zvezi s tem so izsledki preiskave pokazali, da se lahko izračunajo odstopanja med PCN najcenejše industrije v Skupnosti in vsemi drugimi PCN.
This variance was then applied to the average CoP reported by NMPP.
To odstopanje se je nato uporabilo za povprečne proizvodne stroške, ki jih je sporočila družba NMPP.
When there was a match between the PCN produced by the Community industry and the same PCN produced by NTRP, the NTRP cost was used.
Če sta se PCN, ki ga proizvaja industrija Skupnosti, in enak PCN, ki ga proizvaja NTRP, ujemala, so se uporabili stroški NTRP.
The same party questioned the fact that the Commission used data from the IP to construct the normal value and the export price in the IIP.
Ista stranka je podvomila v dejstvo, da je Komisija uporabila podatke iz OP za konstruiranje normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene med OPI.
Some of the claims related thereto were accepted.
Nekatere trditve v zvezi s tem so bile sprejete.
The Commission considered the weighted average of the CIF export prices to the Community during the overlapping six months of both proceedings.
Komisija je preverila tehtano povprečje izvoznih cen CIF v Skupnost v času šestih mesecev, v katerih sta se oba postopka prekrivala.
In addition, to allow a fair comparison within the same period of time, between the weighted average normal values of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community when compared to the weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned, the cost of production of the cooperating producers was adjusted.
Da se je v istem obdobju omogočila poštena primerjava tehtanih povprečnih normalnih vrednosti vsake vrste zadevnega izdelka, izvoženega v Skupnost, s tehtano povprečno izvozno ceno vsake ustrezne vrste zadevnega izdelka, so bili proizvodni stroški sodelujočih proizvajalcev prilagojeni.
The adjustment was made to reflect the cost of manufacturing for the same six months taken into account to calculate the CIF export prices to the Community.
Prilagoditev je bila opravljena, da so se odražali proizvodni stroški v istih šestih mesecih, ki so bili upoštevani pri izračunu izvoznih cen CIF v Skupnost.
The sole Ukrainian cooperating exporter argued that the Commission should use the unit manufacturing cost from the related company, OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsk (NTRP) tube rolling plant, when the PCNs are nearly identical to those produced by OJSC Interpipe Novomoskovsk Pipe Production Plant (NMPP).
Edini ukrajinski sodelujoči izvoznik je trdil, da mora Komisija uporabiti proizvodne stroške na enoto povezane družbe, OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsk (NTRP) tube rolling plant, saj so PCN skoraj identični tistim, ki jih proizvaja OJSC Interpipe Novomoskovsk Pipe Production Plant (NMPP).
As explained in recital 175, the Commission has however evidence of large variations in the cost of production per PCN.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 175, ima Komisija dokaze o velikih razhajanjih pri proizvodnih stroških na PCN.
This claim thus was rejected.
Trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
As regards to the exports to the Community, the group exported a negligible volume of the product concerned to the Community during the IIP.
Kar zadeva izvoz v Skupnost, je skupina v Skupnost med OPI izvozila zanemarljiv obseg zadevnega izdelka.
These transactions, on their own, could not be considered as representative to establish whether any change of behaviour of a lasting nature had taken place.
Sami prenosi se ne morejo šteti kot reprezentativni za ugotavljanje, ali se je zgodila kakršna koli sprememba v obnašanju, ki bi bila trajne narave.
The Interpipe Group suggested using exports to third countries in order to establish the level of prices at which the exports to the Community would take place.
Skupina Interpipe je predlagala uporabo izvoza v tretje države, da bi se vzpostavila raven cen, na kateri bi se opravljal izvoz v Skupnost.
In particular, the exporter claimed that exports to Russia should be used in this regard.
Izvoznik je zlasti vztrajal, da je treba v zvezi s tem uporabiti izvoz v Rusijo.
The company provided evidence of its exports to third country markets, and to the Russian market.
Družba je predložila dokaze o izvozu na trge tretjih držav in na ruski trg.
It was first determined whether the export volumes of the product concerned to the third countries proposed by the Interpipe Group were sufficiently significant in terms of overall sales.
Najprej se je ugotavljalo, ali je obseg izvoza zadevnega izdelka v tretje države, ki ga je predlagala skupina Interpipe, dovolj velik v smislu celotne prodaje.
In this respect it was concluded that sales to Russia represented more than half of the total exports of the group and were in principle adequate to draw conclusions, should the Russian market be sufficiently similar to the Community.
V zvezi s tem se je ugotovilo, da je prodaja v Rusijo predstavljala več kot polovico skupnega izvoza skupine in je bila načeloma primerna za oblikovanje sklepnih ugotovitev, če bi bil ruski trg dovolj podoben trgu Skupnosti.
On the basis of the information at the Commission's disposal, it was examined whether Russia had similar market conditions and structure to those which exist in the Community, in order to assess whether exports to Russia are a reliable proxy of likely export prices to the Community for the purposes of establishing a new level of the measure.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so bile na voljo Komisiji, se je preučilo, ali ima Rusija podobne tržne pogoje in strukturo kot Skupnost, da bi se z namenom vzpostavitve nove ravni ukrepa ocenilo, ali je izvoz v Rusijo zanesljiv približek verjetnih izvoznih cen v Skupnost.
On the one hand, the size of the Russian market for the product concerned, like that of the Community, appears to be significant and the product types sold in both areas are generally similar.
Ruski trg, ki je v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom podoben trgu Skupnosti, se zdi po eni strani velik, prodane vrste izdelkov pa so na obeh območjih na splošno podobne.
On the other hand, salient differences were detected between the two markets.
Po drugi strani so bile ugotovljene izrazite razlike med trgoma.
To start with, significant import duties exist in Russia, in contrast to the absence of such duties in the Community.
V Rusiji obstajajo visoke uvozne dajatve, v Skupnosti pa takih dajatev ni.
This is reflected in import shares which are significantly lower than in the Community.
To se kaže v uvoznih deležih, ki so bistveno nižji od deležev v Skupnosti.
In addition, the production sector in Russia appears to be much more concentrated, with a handful of large producers accounting for the bulk of activity — whereas in the Community activity is spread across a larger number of producers.
Poleg tega se zdi, da je sektor proizvodnje v Rusiji veliko bolj usmerjen s peščico velikih proizvajalcev, ki se pokrivajo večji del dejavnosti, medtem ko je dejavnost v Skupnosti razpršena na večje število proizvajalcev.
Also, channels of distribution appear to involve fewer stockists than in the Community.
Distribucijske poti naj bi tudi vključevale manj dobaviteljev kot v Skupnosti.
Furthermore, the fact that significant Russian dumping exists in the Community points to differences in price formation and to distortions in the Russian domestic market without which such practices could not exist.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da v Skupnosti obstaja pomemben ruski damping, kaže na razlike v oblikovanju cen in izkrivljanja na ruskem domačem trgu, brez katerih take prakse ne bi obstajale.
In addition, the existence of dumping indicates that domestic price levels in Russia are above the prices at which exporters would be likely to export to the Community.
Poleg tega obstoj dampinga kaže, da so ravni domačih cen v Rusiji nad cenami, po katerih bi izvozniki verjetno izvažali v Skupnost.
This is because prevailing prices for importers which maintain a significant presence in the Community are likely to be at the same level as those of Russian export prices and because of the homogeneous nature of the product concerned, which implies that exporters wishing to make inroads in the Community would, in all likelihood, need to align themselves to the level of prices of the lowest bidders.
Razlog je v tem, da so prevladujoče cene za uvoznike, ki ohranjajo pomembno prisotnost v Skupnosti, verjetno na isti ravni kot ruske izvozne cene, ter v tem, da je narava zadevnega izdelka homogena, kar pomeni, da bi se morali izvozniki, ki želijo poseči v Skupnost, po vsej verjetnosti uskladiti z ravnjo cen najnižjih ponudnikov.
The foregoing points to dissimilarities which would affect price formation and hence levels, and which therefore imply that Russian prices may not be used for the purpose of establishing a new level of measures.
Na podlagi navedenega o razlikah, ki bi vplivale na oblikovanje in tem tudi na ravni cen, je mogoče sklepati, da se ruske cene ne morejo uporabiti za namene določanja nove ravni ukrepov.
The Commission further examined whether export prices to third countries other than Russia could be used for this purpose.
Komisija je nadalje preučila, ali se za ta namen lahko uporabijo izvozne cene v tretje države, razen Rusije.
It was first examined whether the second largest market in terms of exports could be taken as a reference country.
Najprej se je preučilo, ali se lahko drugi največji trg v smislu izvoza lahko šteje za referenčno državo.
However, this option was disregarded, as Belarus is not a market economy country.
Vendar se ta možnost ni upoštevala, ker Belorusija ni država tržnega gospodarstva.
Sales to other countries were also analysed but their exports volumes were too small to be considered as representative.
Analizirala se je tudi prodaja v druge države, vendar je bil obseg izvoza premajhen, da bi se lahko štel za reprezentativnega.
In these circumstances, the use of export prices from Ukraine to Russia (and to other third countries where the applicant exported during the IIP) cannot be considered as representative of the likely export price behaviour to the Community and are therefore disregarded.
V teh okoliščinah se izvozne cene iz Ukrajine v Rusijo (in druge tretje države, v katere je vložnik izvažal med OPI) ne morejo obravnavati uporabiti kot reprezentativne za podobno obnašanje izvoznih cen v Skupnost in se zato ne upoštevajo.
In view of the above, it was instead considered necessary to apply Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for the Interpipe Group.
Namesto tega je bilo glede na navedeno treba upoštevati člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe za skupino Interpipe.
In this respect, it was considered whether the weighted average of the CIF export prices to the Community during the IP from all the cooperating exporting producers in all countries concerned by the investigation, could be aggregated on a per PCN basis and used as a reference to establish an export price for the Ukrainian exporting producer.
V zvezi s tem se je ocenilo, ali se tehtano povprečje izvoznih cen CIF v Skupnost med OP od vseh sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v vseh državah, ki jih preiskava zadeva, lahko združi na podlagi PCN in uporabi kot referenca za določitev izvozne cene za ukrajinskega proizvajalca izvoznika.
This method was found to be appropriate since it is reasonable to presume that should Ukrainian exports enter the Community market, they would not deviate to any significant extent from the price pattern of their direct competitors, i.e. the other exporters to the Community.
Ta metoda se je štela za ustrezno, ker je logično domnevati, da ukrajinski izvoz ne bi smel bistveno odstopati od vzorca cen svojih neposrednih konkurentov, tj. drugih izvoznikov v Skupnost, če bi želel vstopiti na trg Skupnosti.
As explained in recital 181, when establishing the export price, the Commission only used the data from the six overlapping months of the IP and IIP.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 181, je Komisija pri določanju izvozne cene uporabila samo podatke za šest mesecev, v katerih sta se OP in OPI prekrivali.
The matching PCN unit export prices of these exporters were thus used to establish the export price of the Interpipe group.
Za določitev izvozne cene skupine Interpipe so se tako uporabile ustrezne izvozne cene na enoto PCN teh izvoznikov.
Following the disclosure, the sole Ukrainian exporting producer claimed that when determining the export price, no deduction should be made for the related company's SG&A and profit, as Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation is not applicable in the present case.
Po razkritju je edini ukrajinski proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da se pri določanju izvozne cene ne bi smel upoštevati odbitek za PSA in dobiček povezane družbe, ker se v tem primeru člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe ne uporablja.
It was argued that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation only applies to related importers located in the Community as its wording makes a clear distinction between ‘importation and resale’.
Člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe naj bi se uporabljal samo za povezane uvoznike v Skupnosti, ker njegovo besedilo jasno ločuje med „uvozom in ponovno prodajo“.
It was further argued that the related company acts as an export department.
Poleg tega naj bi povezana družba delovala kot izvozni oddelek.
It should be noted that, for sales of the product concerned to the Community, the sole Ukrainian exporting producer consigned the product concerned directly to the Community, invoiced its related company in Switzerland for each consignment and received payment accordingly.
Treba je poudariti, da je edini ukrajinski proizvajalec izvoznik pri prodaji zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost pošiljal zadevni izdelek neposredno v Skupnost, pri čemer je vsako pošiljko zaračunal povezani družbi v Švici in temu ustrezno prejel plačilo.
Thus, the exporting producer performed all functions of an exporter.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je torej opravljal vse funkcije izvoznika.
The related company in Switzerland negotiated sales contracts and invoiced the first independent buyer in the Community.
Povezana družba v Švici se je pogajala o prodajnih pogodbah in blago zaračunavala prvemu neodvisnemu kupcu v Skupnosti.
The related company also arranged the delivery of the products sold.
Povezana družba je ravno tako organizirala dostavo prodanih izdelkov.
Concerning the disclosure comments made by the Ukrainian company, it is held that export prices may be constructed under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation where there is no export price (first option under article 2(9)).
V zvezi s pripombami ukrajinske družbe glede razkritja se zadrži stališče, da se izvozne cene lahko konstruirajo po členu 2(9) osnovne uredbe, če izvozne cene ni (prva možnost po členu 2(9)).
Again under Article 2(9), export prices can be constructed on any reasonable basis.
Člen 2(9) določa tudi, da se izvozne cene lahko konstruirajo na kateri koli razumni osnovi.
Such reasonable basis will also cater for a deduction of the related company's SG&A and a reasonable profit.
Takšna razumna osnova vključuje tudi odbitek za PSA in razumni dobiček povezane družbe.
Even if it was considered that these elements are more appropriately reflected as ‘commissions’/‘mark-ups’ in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, quod non, the resulting dumping margin would be the same.
Tudi če bi predpostavljali, da so ti elementi primernejši kot „pristojbine“/„pribitki“ v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, quod non, bi bila dobljena stopnja dampinga enaka.
Since the profit of the related company was affected by the fact that it purchased under inter-company conditions, a reasonable profit was therefore determined on the basis of data gathered from independent importers/traders cooperating with the investigation.
Ker je na dobiček povezane družbe vplivalo dejstvo, da je kupovala po notranjih pogojih družbe, je bil razumni dobiček določen na osnovi podatkov, zbranih od neodvisnih uvoznikov/trgovcev, ki so sodelovali v preiskavi.
Following disclosure, the Community industry claimed that the Basic Regulation and WTO law do not allow the calculation of dumping margins when there are no exports made to the Community.
Po razkritju je industrija Skupnosti trdila, da osnovna uredba in predpisi STO ne dovoljujejo izračun stopenj dampinga, če ni izvoza v Skupnost.
For the reasons stated in the previous recitals, it is reiterated that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation explicitly mentions that when there is no export price, such price may be constructed on any reasonable basis.
Zaradi razlogov iz prejšnjih uvodnih izjav se ponovi, da člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe izrecno navaja, da ko ni izvozne cene, se takšna cena lahko konstruira na kateri koli razumni osnovi.
Consequently, the claim is rejected.
Ta zahtevek se zato zavrne.
The comparison between the normal value calculated as described above and the export price also calculated as described above, showed the existence of dumping.
Primerjava med normalno vrednostjo, izračunano, kot je navedeno, in izvoznimi cenami, prav tako izračunanimi in navedenimi, je pokazala obstoj dampinga.