natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 should be maintained.
Iz navedenega sledi, da je treba v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe ohraniti protidampinške ukrepe, uvedene z Uredbo (ES) št. 1736/2004.
Nevertheless, and without ignoring that the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping has been established, the present proceeding is characterised by particular circumstances, notably the long duration of the measures in force which have already been extended once, and the very limited quantities of actual imports from India as referred to in recitals 21 to 24.
Vendar pa so, ob upoštevanju, da je bila ugotovljena verjetnost ponovitve škodljivega dampinga, za ta postopek značilne posebne okoliščine, in sicer dolgo trajanje veljavnih ukrepov, ki so enkrat že bili podaljšani, in zelo omejene količine dejanskega uvoza iz Indije, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od (21) do (24).
These facts should also be adequately reflected in the duration of the further extended anti-dumping measures, which should be three years.
Ta dejstva je treba ustrezno upoštevati pri določitvi trajanja dodatno podaljšanih protidampinških ukrepov, ki bi moralo biti tri leta.
Following disclosure, the applicant stated that the measures should be extended for five years and that the reasoning set out above for a shorter extension would not be justified.
Po razkritju je vložnik navedel, da je ukrepe treba podaljšati za pet let in da navedeni razlogi za krajše podaljšanje ne bi bili upravičeni.
Normally, the extension of measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation applies for a period of five years.
Običajno se ukrepi v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe podaljšajo za obdobje pet let.
The investigation has concluded that the Union industry was still in a fragile situation at the end of the RIP; it has been in financial difficulties for a long period of time as established in the original investigation.
V okviru preiskave je bilo sklenjeno, da je bil položaj industrije Unije ob koncu OPP še vedno občutljiv; dolgo je bila v finančnih težavah, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi.
Consequently, full recovery from the injurious dumping has not been achieved yet.
Zato si še ni popolnoma opomogla od škodljivega dampinga.
However, a number of injury indicators showed that the imposition of measures has already allowed for some substantial improvements.
Vendar pa so številni kazalniki škode pokazali, da je uvedba ukrepov že omogočila nekaj bistvenih izboljšav.
From the analysis of this complex situation it is concluded that a full and solid recovery from any past effect of the injurious dumping is likely to take place within a shorter period of time than the normal five years.
Iz analize tega zapletenega položaja se sklepa, da si bo industrija Unije verjetno v celoti in trajno opomogla od preteklih učinkov škodljivega dampinga v krajšem času kot v običajnih petih letih.
It was assessed that, considering the overall injury analysis and the likely market developments with the measures in place, a period of three years should be enough to the Union industry to complete its economic and financial recovery.
Ocenjeno je bilo, da mora biti ob upoštevanju celovite analize škode in verjetnega razvoja trga ob veljavnih ukrepih tri leta dovolj, da si industrija Unije dokončno gospodarsko in finančno opomore.
For these reasons it does not appear necessary to maintain the measures for a longer period.
Iz teh razlogov se zdi, da ukrepov ni treba ohraniti za daljše obdobje.
Therefore, it is considered that an extension of the measures for the full five-year period is not fully supported by the facts established by the investigation, and that the duration of the measures should as a consequence be limited to three years.
Zato se šteje, da dejstva, ugotovljena s preiskavo, ne podpirajo podaljšanja veljavnosti ukrepov za nadaljnjih pet let in da je treba veljavnost ukrepov zato omejiti na tri leta.
The individual anti-dumping duty rate specified in Article1 was established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation.
Individualna stopnja protidampinške dajatve iz člena 1 je bila določena na podlagi ugotovitev prvotne preiskave.
Therefore, it reflects the situation found during that investigation with respect to the company concerned.
Zato odraža stanje, ki je bilo ugotovljeno med prvotno preiskavo v zvezi z zadevno družbo.
This duty rate (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) is thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in India and produced by the company concerned and thus by the specific legal entity mentioned.
Ta stopnja dajatve (v nasprotju z dajatvijo za celotno državo, ki se uporablja za „vse druge družbe“) se tako uporablja izključno za uvoz izdelkov s poreklom iz Indije, ki jih proizvaja zadevna družba, tj. posebej navedena pravna oseba.
Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned inArticle 1, including entities related to the one specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from this rate and shall be subject to the country-wide duty.
Uvoženi izdelki, ki so jih proizvedle katere koli druge družbe, ki niso posebej navedene v členu 1, vključno s subjekti, povezanimi s temi posebej navedenimi subjekti, ne morejo biti upravičeni do te stopnje dajatve in zanje velja dajatev, ki se uporablja na ravni države.
Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities.
Vsak zahtevek za uporabo za navedeno družbo določene stopnje protidampinške dajatve (npr. zaradi spremembe imena družbe ali zaradi ustanovitve novih proizvodnih ali prodajnih obratov) je treba takoj nasloviti na Komisijo skupaj z vsemi potrebnimi podatki, zlasti o vsaki spremembi dejavnosti družbe na področju proizvodnje ter domače prodaje in izvoza, ki sta povezana s to spremembo imena ali spremembo proizvodnih in prodajnih obratov.
If appropriate, this Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duties,
Če je primerno, se bo Uredba ustrezno spremenila z dopolnitvijo seznama družb, za katere veljajo individualne stopnje dajatve –
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics, of polyethylene or polypropylene, other than binder and baler twine, measuring more than 50000 decitex (5 g/m), as well as of other synthetic fibres of nylon or other polyamides or of polyesters, measuring more than 50000 decitex (5 g/m), currently falling within CN codes 56074911, 56074919, 56075011and 56075019 and originating in India.
Dokončna protidampinška dajatev se uvede za uvoz vrvi, vrvja, motvozov, konopcev in kablov, vključno prepletenih ali vpletenih, impregniranih, prevlečenih, prekritih, obloženih z gumo ali plastično maso, iz polietilena ali polipropilena, razen vrvi za povezovanje ali strojno pakiranje, številke več kot 50000 deciteksov (5 g/m), ter iz drugih sintetičnih vlaken iz najlona ali drugih poliamidov ali iz poliestrov, številke več kot 50000 deciteksov (5 g/m), trenutno uvrščenih pod oznake KN 56074911, 56074919, 56075011 in 56075019 in s poreklom iz Indije.
The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
Stopnja dokončne protidampinške dajatve, ki se uporablja za neto ceno franko meja Unije pred plačilom dajatev za izdelek iz odstavka 1, ki ga proizvajajo spodaj navedene družbe, je:
It shall apply for a period of three years.
Uporablja se za obdobje treh let.
OJ L 311, 8.10.2004, p. 1.
UL L 311, 8.10.2004, str. 1.
OJ C 240, 7.10.2009, p. 6.
UL C 240, 7.10.2009, str. 6.
In recent years, the Union industry has increased the manufacturing of higher value products. Thus such synthetic fibre ropes represent a growing share within their product mix.
V zadnjih letih je industrija Unije povečala proizvodnjo izdelkov višje vrednosti, zato takšne vrvi iz sintetičnih vlaken predstavljajo naraščajoč delež znotraj njene ponudbe izdelkov.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 1243/2010
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz likalnih desk s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jih proizvaja družba Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9(4) Uredbe,
Following an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) and Ukraine (‘the first investigation’), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 [2].
Po protidampinški preiskavi v zvezi z uvozom likalnih desk s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske (v nadaljnjem besedilu: LRK oziroma zadevna država) in Ukrajine (v nadaljnjem besedilu: prva preiskava) so bili z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 452/2007 z dne 23. aprila 2007 [2] uvedeni protidampinški ukrepi.
It is recalled that the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on ironing boards produced by the Chinese exporting producer Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘Since Hardware’) was 0 % while it ranged between 18,1 % and 38,1 % for other Chinese exporting producers.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bila stopnja dokončne protidampinške dajatve na likalne deske, ki jih proizvaja kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik, družba Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. („družba Since Hardware“), 0 %, medtem ko se je za ostale kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike gibala med 18,1 in 38,1 %.
Following a subsequent interim review. these duty rates were increased to up to 42,3 % pursuant to Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010 of 29 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 [3].
Po naknadnem vmesnem pregledu so se te stopnje dajatve povečale do 42,3 % v skladu z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 270/2010 z dne 29. marca 2010 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007.
Initiation of the current proceeding
Začetek sedanjega postopka
On 2 October 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [4] (‘notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation concerning imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the PRC, limited to Since Hardware.
Komisija je 2. oktobra 2009 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o začetku), napovedala začetek protidampinške preiskave v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredbe o uvozu likalnih desk s poreklom iz LRK v Unijo, omejene na družbo Since Hardware.
In the notice of initiation, the Commission also announced the initiation of a review pursuant to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 (‘review pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001’) in order to allow for any necessary amendment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report entitled ‘Mexico — Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice’ (AB-2005-6) [5] (the ‘WTO Appellate Body report’).
V obvestilu o začetku je Komisija napovedala tudi začetek pregleda v skladu s členom 2(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1515/2001 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pregled v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1515/2001), da se omogočijo potrebne spremembe Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 na podlagi poročila pritožbenega organa STO z naslovom: Mehika - dokončni protidampinški ukrepi za goveje meso in riž (AB-2005-6)(v nadaljnjem besedilu: poročilo pritožbenega organa STO) [4].
The anti-dumping investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 August 2009 by three Union producers, Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Pirola S.p.A. and Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. (‘the complainants’), representing a major proportion of the total Union production of ironing boards.
Protidampinška preiskava se je začela na podlagi pritožbe, ki so jo 20. avgusta 2009 vložili trije proizvajalci Unije: Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Pirola S.p.A. in Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd. („pritožniki“), ki predstavljajo glavni delež celotne proizvodnje likalnih desk v Uniji.
It is recalled that a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation was initiated against Since Hardware rather than an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, in the light of the WTO Appellate Body report.
Opozoriti je treba, da se je namesto vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe proti družbi Since Hardware začela nova protidampinška preiskava na osnovi člena 5 osnovne uredbe na podlagi poročila pritožbenega organa STO.
Since Hardware submitted that the Commission could not initiate a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company as it thereby violated the general principle enshrined in GATT Article VI and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (WTO ADA) as well as that in the basic Regulation that anti-dumping proceedings are directed against imports of countries and not of individual companies.
Družba Since Hardware je menila, da na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe Komisija ne more začeti nove protidampinške preiskave proti eni družbi, ker bi s tem kršila osnovno načelo, zapisano v členu VI GATT in Protidampinškem sporazumu STO (STO ADA), pa tudi v osnovni uredbi, ki pravi, da so protidampinški ukrepi usmerjeni proti uvozu držav in ne posameznih družb.
In particular, Since Hardware claimed that the Commission had breached Articles 9(3) and 11(6) of the basic Regulation by initiating an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 instead of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Družba Since Hardware je zlasti trdila, da je Komisija s tem, ko je začela protidampinško preiskavo na podlagi člena 5 in ne člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe, kršila člen 9(3) in člen 11(6) osnovne uredbe.
Since Hardware also argued that in the absence of a direct effect of WTO rules in the Union legal order, the Commission could not decide to ignore the above provisions of the basic Regulation in order to implement a WTO ruling automatically, without prior modification by the Council of the basic Regulation.
Družba Since Hardware je trdila še, da se ob odsotnosti neposrednega učinka pravil STO v pravnem redu Unije Komisija ni mogla odločiti, da ne bo upoštevala zgoraj navedenih določb osnovne uredbe, da bi lahko samodejno izvedla odločitev STO, brez predhodne spremembe osnovne uredbe, ki bi jo opravil Svet.
In this respect, it is acknowledged that anti-dumping proceedings are normally initiated against imports from a country and not from individual companies.
S tem v zvezi se priznava, da se protidampinški postopki običajno začnejo proti uvozu iz države in ne iz posameznih družb.
However, the present case is an exception to the above rule in view of the following special circumstances.
Vendar pa je ta primer glede na naslednje posebne okoliščine izjema pri zgoraj navedenem pravilu.
The WTO Appellate Body report provides in paragraphs 216 to 218 that Article 5.8 of the WTO ADA requires an investigative authority to terminate the investigation in respect of an exporter found not to have a margin above de minimis in an original investigation and, in paragraph 305, that the exporter consequently must be excluded from definitive anti-dumping measures and cannot be subject to administrative and changed circumstances reviews.
Poročilo pritožbenega organa STO v odstavkih 216 do 218 določi, da mora preiskovalni organ na podlagi člena 5.8 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO zaključiti preiskavo v zvezi z izvoznikom, za katerega se je v prvotni preiskavi ugotovilo, da nima stopnje nad de minimis stopnjo, in v odstavku 305 da je treba zato izvoznika izključiti iz dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov in se za njih ne smejo izvajati upravni pregledi in pregledi v zvezi s spremenjenimi okoliščinami.
It is true that the lack of direct effect of WTO rules means that the legality of measures adopted by the Union Institutions (the ‘Institutions’) cannot normally be reviewed in the light of the WTO agreements.
Res je, da pomanjkanje neposrednih učinkov pravil STO pomeni, da zakonitosti ukrepov, ki so jih sprejele institucije Unije, običajno ni mogoče pregledati v luči sporazumov STO.
However, this does not mean, in this particular case, that the Institutions must ignore WTO rules, and in particular the WTO Appellate Body report.
Vendar v tem primeru to ne pomeni, da morajo institucije prezreti pravila STO ali zlasti poročila pritožbenega organa STO.
Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 was adopted specifically to allow the Institutions to bring a measure taken under the basic Regulation into conformity with the rulings contained in a report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body as mentioned in recital (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 without a prior amendment of the basic Regulation.
Uredba (ES) št. 1515/2001 je bila sprejeta posebej z namenom, da se institucijam omogoči, da ukrep, uveden v skladu z osnovno uredbo, uskladijo z odločitvami iz poročila, ki ga je sprejel Organ za reševanje sporov, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1515/2001, brez predhodnega spreminjanja osnovne uredbe.
Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 thus, in particular, allows the Institutions to formally exclude exporters which have been found, during an earlier original investigation, not to be dumping, from the scope of the Regulation which was adopted at the end of that investigation.
Uredba (ES) št. 1515/2001 tako institucijam zlasti dovoljuje, da izvoznike, za katere se je v predhodni prvotni preiskavi ugotovilo, da ne izvajajo dampinga, formalno izključijo iz obsega uredbe, ki je bila sprejeta ob koncu navedene preiskave.
In order to do so, the review of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001.
V ta namen je bil uveden pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1515/2001.
Moreover, none of the provisions of the basic Regulation exclude the opening of a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against one company.
Poleg tega nobena določba osnovne uredbe ne izključuje začetka nove protidampinške preiskave na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe proti eni družbi.
Also, Union legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where the provisions at issue are intended to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union.
Zakonodajo Unije je treba, če je le mogoče, razlagati na način, ki je v skladu z mednarodnim pravom, zlasti kadar so zadevne določbe namenjene izvajanju mednarodnega sporazuma, ki ga je sklenila Unija.
Since the WTO ADA on the one hand allows WTO members to impose duties to counteract harmful dumping, but on the other hand has been interpreted by the Appellate Body in the WTO Appellate Body report as not allowing reviews of companies found not to be dumping during an original investigation, the basic Regulation must therefore be interpreted to allow the Union to open an investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation in a case like the present one.
Ker STO ADA članom STO po eni strani dovoljuje uvedbo dajatev, da se prepreči škodljivi damping, po drugi strani pa glede na razlago pritožbenega organa STO v poročilu ne omogoča pregleda družb, za katere se je v prvotni preiskavi ugotovilo, da ne izvajajo dampinga, je treba osnovno uredbo razlagati, kot da Uniji v primeru, kot je ta, dovoljuje začetek preiskave, ki temelji na členu 5 osnovne uredbe.
By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 of 20 December 2010 [6] Since Hardware was excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.
Z Izvedbeno Uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 1241/2010 z dne 20. decembra 2010 [5] je bil Since Hardware izključen iz področja uporabe Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007.
Therefore, in view of the special circumstances of the case, the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against Since Hardware is lawful.
Zato je glede na posebne okoliščine primera zakonito začeti protidampinško preiskavo na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe proti družbi Since Hardware.
The Commission officially advised Since Hardware, the importers and Union producers known to be concerned, the representatives of the country concerned, and producers in potential analogue countries of the initiation of the proceeding.
Komisija je o začetku postopka uradno obvestila družbo Since Hardware, uvoznike in proizvajalce v Uniji, za katere se je vedelo, da jih to zadeva, predstavnike zadevne države in proizvajalce v možnih primerljivih državah.
The interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in zaprosijo za zaslišanje v roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku.
In order to allow Since Hardware to submit a claim for market economy treatment (‘MET’) or individual treatment (‘IT’), if it so wished, the Commission sent a claim form to the exporting producer.
Da bi družba Since Hardware lahko predložila zahtevek za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: TGO) ali individualno obravnavo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: IO), če tako želi, je Komisija proizvajalcu izvozniku poslala obrazec za zahtevek.
The Commission also sent a questionnaire to Since Hardware.
Komisija je družbi Since Hardware poslala tudi vprašalnik.
The exporting producer submitted a filled-in MET/IT claim and replied to the questionnaire.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je predložil izpolnjen zahtevek TGO/IO in odgovoril na vprašalnik.
In view of the high number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of contribution to injury, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Glede na veliko število proizvajalcev Unije je bilo v obvestilu o začetku predvideno vzorčenje za določitev prispevka k škodi v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
Five Union producers came forward and provided the requested information for sampling within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.
V roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku, je zahtevane informacije za vzorčenje predložilo pet proizvajalcev Unije.
From the above five Union producers, only the three complainants formed part of the Union industry in the first investigation.
Le trije pritožniki od zgoraj navedenih petih proizvajalcev Unije so v prvi preiskavi predstavljali del industrije Unije.