natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The cooperating exporting producer argued that the scheme allows refund of customs duties for both locally-procured as well as imported PTA and thus the scheme does not favour procurement of domestically-produced PTA.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je navedel, da shema omogoča povračilo carin za lokalno proizvedeno in uvoženo PTA ter zato ne daje prednosti nabavi doma proizvedene PTA.
It was also argued that the legislation does not limit access to this scheme.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da zakonodaja ne omejuje dostopa do te sheme.
The above arguments had to be rejected.
Zgoraj navedene trditve je bilo treba zavrniti.
In this regard it is noted that this scheme provides a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds that confers a clear benefit upon the recipient company.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da ta shema zagotavlja finančni prispevek v obliki neposrednega prenosa sredstev, ki družbi prejemnici prinaša očitne ugodnosti.
By analyzing the information submitted by the GOP, it is clear that an eligible company may: (i) buy in the domestic market PTA and receive a compensatory support of a portion equal to 7,5 % of the price paid for PTA purchases manufactured locally or (ii) import PTA and receive a refund of the applicable customs duty (7,5 %) paid on imports of PTA.
Na podlagi analize informacij, ki jih je predložila pakistanska vlada, je jasno, da lahko upravičena družba: (i) kupi PTA na domačem trgu in prejme kompenzacijsko podporo, ki znaša 7,5 % cene nakupa lokalno proizvedene PTA, ali (ii) uvozi PTA in prejme povračilo za veljavno carino (7,5 %) na uvoz PTA.
Nevertheless, the latter option is not permitted if the eligible company uses a duty drawback scheme (e.g. Manufacture Bond) on imports of PTA.
Vendar druga možnost ni dovoljena, če upravičena družba uporablja shemo za povračilo dajatev (npr. proizvodnja pod carinskim nadzorom) za uvoz PTA.
It is clear form the above that the cooperating exporting producer was de jure forced to use this scheme only for its purchases of domestically-procured PTA as it was using in parallel the Manufacturing Bond scheme for its imported PTA.
Na podlagi navedenega je jasno, da je bil sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik pravno prisiljen uporabiti to shemo le za nakupe doma proizvedene PTA, saj je za uvoženo PTA istočasno uporabljal shemo proizvodnje pod carinskim nadzorom.
Furthermore it is obvious that even in cases where one eligible company makes use of both available options of the scheme (i.e. by denouncing the possibility to use the drawback scheme of Manufacturing Bond) it is clear that the refunds that one would expect to receive would have been different as in one case the rate is calculated on a full domestic invoice price while on the other case it is calculated on the declared value at customs that is not necessarily the full invoice price.
Poleg tega je jasno, da so tudi v primerih, ko upravičena družba uporablja obe razpoložljivi shemi (to je z odpovedjo možnosti uporabe sheme za povračilo dajatev za proizvodnjo pod carinskim nadzorom), vračila drugačna od pričakovanih, saj je v enem primeru obrestna mera izračunana na podlagi polne domače fakturirane cene, medtem ko je v drugem primeru izračunana na podlagi določene carinske vrednosti, ki ni nujno polna fakturirana cena.
No verifiable evidence was provided that could undermine the aforesaid conclusions.
Predloženi niso bili nobeni preverljivi dokazi, ki bi ovrgli navedene sklepne ugotovitve.
Finally, with respect to the argument that there are no restrictions in the access of the scheme, the investigation has established that the relevant legislation clearly listed by name the eligible parties.
Nazadnje je bilo v zvezi s trditvijo o neomejenosti dostopa do sheme v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da zadevna zakonodaja jasno poimensko navaja upravičene strani.
In any event, domestically-produced PTA is not subject to any duty and therefore the 7,5 % ‘refund’ is a direct transfer of funds, or a pure grant.
V vsakem primeru za doma proizvedeno PTA ne velja nobena dajatev, zato je 7,5 % „vračilo“ neposredni prenos sredstev ali popolna donacija.
The only way for a producer of PET to obtain this subsidy, i.e. the grant, is to purchase domestically-produced PTA.
Proizvajalec PET lahko prejme to subvencijo, to je donacijo, le tako, da kupi doma proizvedeno PTA.
On the other hand, any ‘refund’ of customs duty on imported PTA is an exemption of a payment normally due, not a direct transfer of funds; therefore, there is no equivalence between the two situations.
Po drugi strani pa je vsako „vračilo“ carine za uvoz PTA oprostitev običajnega plačila in ne neposredni prenos sredstev, zato navedena položaja nista enaka.
Consequently, the scheme confers a clear benefit to the domestic buyer i.e. the producer of PET by means of a direct transfer of funds and it is specific, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, given that the subsidy is contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, since only domestic goods are eligible for the direct grant.
Shema torej kupcu domače proizvodnje, to je proizvajalcu PET, prinaša očitne ugodnosti z neposrednim prenosom sredstev in je specifična v smislu člena 4(4)(b) osnovne uredbe, saj je subvencija pogojena z uporabo domačega blaga pred uvoženim, ker je le domače blago upravičeno do neposredne donacije.
Furthermore, this subsidy can also be considered specific within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, given that the legislation itself explicitly limits access to this scheme to certain enterprises belonging to the polyester industry.
Poleg tega se ta subvencija lahko obravnava kot specifična tudi v smislu člena 4(4)(a) osnovne uredbe, saj zakonodaja sama izrecno omejuje dostop nekaterih podjetij v industriji poliestra do te sheme.
Furthermore, a press clipping submitted on the same matter from the cooperating exporting producer appears to suggest that the GOP decided to withdraw the regulation relevant to this scheme in order for Pakistan to meet international standards in this regard.
Poleg tega se zdi, da odlomek iz časopisa v zvezi z istim vprašanjem, ki ga je predložil sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik, navaja, da se je pakistanska vlada odločila umakniti uredbo, ki zadeva to shemo, da bi Pakistan v zvezi s tem izpolnil mednarodne standarde.
The cooperating exporting producer corroborated the information provided by GOP by data confirming that starting from 1 July 2010 it is not possible anymore to receive the relevant grant when purchasing domestically-produced PTA.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je s podatki, ki potrjujejo, da s 1. julijem 2010 ob nakupu doma proizvedene PTA ni več mogoče prejeti zadevne donacije, podprl informacije, ki jih je predložila pakistanska vlada.
In this respect it is recalled that in line with Article 15 of the basic Regulation no measure shall be imposed if the subsidy is withdrawn or it has been demonstrated that the subsidy no longer confers any benefit on the exporters involved.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da se v skladu s členom 15 osnovne uredbe ne uvede noben ukrep, če se subvencija ukine ali če se dokaže, da subvencija zadevnim izvoznikom ne zagotavlja več nobenih ugodnosti.
It is obvious from the above information that Pakistan in substance accepts that the points highlighted by the provisional Regulation with respect to this scheme called for corrective action from its side, that the GOP has terminated the scheme and that the cooperating exporting producer is not receiving any benefits related to this scheme.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih informacij je jasno, da se Pakistan pravzaprav strinja, da se z vsebino točk, ki jih v zvezi s to shemo poudarja začasna uredba, poziva k uvedbi popravnih ukrepov, da je pakistanska vlada odpravila shemo in da sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik ne prejema nobenih ugodnosti iz te sheme.
Under these circumstances it is considered that the conditions set out by Article 15 of the basic Regulation are met and thus this scheme should not be countervailed.
V teh okoliščinah se šteje, da so pogoji iz člena 15 osnovne uredbe izpolnjeni, zato se proti tej shemi izravnalni ukrep ne bi smel uvesti.
In the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (93) to (105) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (58) to (61) above, are hereby confirmed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo drugih pripomb, se ugotovitve v zvezi s to shemo, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah (93) do (105) začasne uredbe in spremenjene v uvodnih izjavah (58) do (61) zgoraj, potrdijo.
Both parties claimed that this scheme constitutes a different taxation system and should not be countervailed given that Pakistan has sovereignty of taxation and is free to apply the taxation system it wishes.
Obe strani sta navedli, da predstavlja ta shema drugačen davčni sistem in se proti njej ne sme uvesti izravnalni ukrep glede na to, da ima Pakistan suverenost nad obdavčevanjem in lahko uporablja kateri koli davčni sistem.
It was also argued that the FTR does not imply any financial contribution to any company and it is a generalised rule of taxation in Pakistan (a withholding tax of 1 % at the time of the realisation of foreign exchange proceeds) that operates under a different concept and on a different basis as compared to the Normal Tax Regime (NTR) which provides for a taxation at 35 % on the domestic income.
Prav tako sta navedli, da FTR ne pomeni nobenega finančnega prispevka nobeni družbi in je splošno pravilo obdavčitve v Pakistanu (odtegnjeni davek v višini 1 % v času unovčenja deviznega iztržka), ki se izvaja v okviru drugačnega koncepta in na drugačni podlagi kot običajni davčni režim (NTR), ki za domači prihodek predvideva davek v višini 35 %.
According to these parties it is not possible to determine which of the two systems is more favourable and thus the FTR does not result in revenue foregone or not collecting government revenue that is otherwise due.
Po navedbah teh strani ni mogoče določiti, kateri od dveh sistemov je ugodnejši, zato FTR ne ustvarja opuščenega prihodka oziroma ne izterja prihodka vlade, ki je sicer zapadel.
With respect to these claims, it should be noted that it is not Pakistan’s sovereignty that is questioned, but the alleged subsidies granted to certain exporting producers.
V zvezi s temi trditvami bi bilo treba poudariti, da se ne dvomi o suverenosti Pakistana, ampak o domnevnih subvencijah, dodeljenih nekaterim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
Moreover, it should be recalled that profits from exports are taxed in a different way from those earned on domestic sales.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je dobiček od izvoza obdavčen drugače kot dobiček od domače prodaje.
To the extent that this tax regime results in profits from exports being taxed at a lower rate than those earned on domestic sales, this scheme is considered to be a subsidy within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation in the form of forgone government revenue that confers a benefit upon the recipient company.
Glede na to, da ta davčni režim prinaša dobiček od izvoza, ki je obdavčen z nižjo stopnjo kot dobiček od domače prodaje, se ta shema v smislu člena 3(1)(a)(ii) in člena 3(2) osnovne uredbe šteje za subvencijo v obliki zapadlega prihodka vlade, ki družbi prejemnici prinaša ugodnosti.
It is also a specific subsidy under Article 4(4)(a) given that it is contingent upon export performance.
Ta shema je specifična subvencija tudi v smislu člena 4(4)(a) glede na to, da je pogojena z opravljenim izvozom.
These arguments had to be rejected.
Te trditve je bilo treba zavrniti.
Firstly, the calculations provided do not form part of the company’s income tax return statement or any other official tax authority document.
Prvič, predloženi izračuni niso del napovedi za odmero davka od dohodka družbe ali katerega koli drugega uradnega dokumenta davčnega organa.
Thus there in no verifiable evidence that they accurately picture the income tax obligations of the cooperating exporting producer.
Zato ni preverljivega dokaza, da bi ti izračuni v zvezi z davkom od dohodka natančno prikazovali obveznosti sodelujočega proizvajalca izvoznika.
Secondly, an analysis of the submitted official tax documents (notice of tax demand and assessment order) does not in any way confirm the claims made by parties on the levels of tax due under the different tax regimes.
Drugič, analiza predložene uradne davčne dokumentacije (obvestilo o davčni zahtevi in odredba o oceni) na nikakršen način ne potrjuje trditev strani glede stopenj zapadlih davčnih obveznosti v okviru različnih davčnih režimov.
With respect to the submitted documentation referring to 2008, the parties have failed to show how the amounts presented can accurately tally with the company’s 2008 income tax return statement and the two documents issued subsequently by the relevant tax authorities.
Kar zadeva predloženo dokumentacijo za leto 2008, strani niso dokazale, da se predloženi zneski točno ujemajo z napovedjo za odmero davka od dohodka družbe za leto 2008 in dokumentoma, ki so jih naknadno izdali pristojni davčni organi.
With respect to the latter documents they appear to confirm that the company is requested to pay an income tax amount on its domestic income.
Glede na navedena dokumenta se zdi, da potrjujeta zahtevo za plačilo davka od domačega dohodka s strani družbe.
Nevertheless, it is not at all clear from the submitted information that this tax amount (or any other tax amount) was actually paid or if the company has appealed the above-mentioned tax notice.
Kljub temu iz predloženih informacij ni popolnoma jasno, ali je bil ta davek (ali kakršen koli drug davek) dejansko plačan ali se je družba pritožila na navedeno davčno odmero.
It is also not clear how the amounts submitted in the excel calculations could tally either with the company’s income tax return statement or with the tax authority’s assessment order.
Prav tako ni jasno, kako bi se lahko zneski, predloženi v Excelovih izračunih, ujemali z napovedjo za odmero davka od dohodka družbe ali z odredbo organa o oceni.
In any event even if one was to accept that the amount set in the notice of tax demand was paid, this would not alter the conclusion that the cooperating exporting producer paid less tax than it would have paid if the 35 % rate was applied to export income.
Vendar tudi če se predpostavlja, da je bil znesek iz odmere o davčni zahtevi plačan, to ne bi spremenilo sklepne ugotovitve, da je sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik plačal manjši davek, kot bi ga plačal, če bi se za dohodek od izvoza uporabljala 35 % stopnja.
The subsidy rate established with regards to this scheme during the IP for the exporting producer amounts to 1,97 % (instead of 1,95 %).
Stopnja subvencije za to shemo v OP za sodelujočega proizvajalca izvoznika je 1,97 % (namesto 1,95 %).
In the light of the above, and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (106) to (116) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recital (70) above, are hereby confirmed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo nobenih drugih ustreznih pripomb, se ugotovitve v zvezi s to shemo, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah (106) do (116) začasne uredbe in spremenjene v uvodni izjavi (70) zgoraj, potrdijo.
These claims had to be rejected.
Te trditve je bilo treba zavrniti.
First of all, it should be clarified that the rate used in the calculation is the commercial interest rate which prevailed during the IP in Pakistan, as sourced from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan.
Najprej bi bilo treba pojasniti, da je obrestna mera, uporabljena v izračunu, komercialna obrestna mera, ki je prevladovala v OP v Pakistanu, kot je bilo navedeno na spletni strani državne banke Pakistana.
The financing negotiated in 2004/2005 was drawn down in tranches by the exporter concerned.
Financiranje, dogovorjeno v obdobju 2004–2005, je zadevni uvoznik črpal po obrokih.
When calculating the subsidy amount the amount of credit drawn down for the IP, as reported by the cooperating exporting producer, was used.
Pri izračunu zneska subvencije se je uporabil znesek kredita za OP, kot ga je sporočil sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik.
When examining the benefit received by a party during a specific IP the applicable commercial credit rate prevailing in the market during the IP is normally compared to the rate paid on the loan received during the IP, and this was done here.
Pri preučevanju ugodnosti, ki jih je stran prejela v posameznem OP, se uporabi veljavna komercialna kreditna obrestna mera, ki prevladuje na trgu v ustreznem OP in ki se običajno primerja s stopnjo, plačano na posojilo, prejeto med OP. To se je opravilo tudi tukaj.
With regards to the denominator in the subsidy calculation, it has to be recalled that a precondition to benefit from the scheme is that the company has to export directly or indirectly at least 50 % of its annual production.
V zvezi z imenovalcem pri izračunu subvencije je treba opozoriti, da mora družba za koriščenje sheme neposredno ali posredno izvoziti najmanj 50 % svoje letne proizvodnje.
Thus, the subsidy amount (nominator) has to be allocated over the export turnover of the product concerned during the IP because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance.
Zato je treba znesek subvencije (števec) dodeliti za prihodek od izvoza zadevnega izdelka v OP, ker je subvencija odvisna od opravljenega izvoza.
In the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (117) to (133) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo drugih pripomb, se ugotovitve v zvezi s to shemo, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah (117) do (133) začasne uredbe, potrdijo.
To this matter the cooperating exporting producer argued that pursuant to the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Circular No 09 of 2010, dated 28 June 2010 the company has repaid the entire amounts of EFS financing and there is no amount outstanding on 30 June 2010 with respect to the EFS.
V zvezi s tem je sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik navedel, da je v skladu z Okrožnico št. 9 državne banke Pakistana z dne 28. junija 2010 družba odplačala celotne zneske financiranja iz EFS in dne 30. junija 2010 v zvezi z EFS ni bilo nobenega neplačanega zneska.
With respect to this claim it is recalled that Article 15 of the basic Regulation states that no measures shall be imposed if the subsidy is withdrawn or it is demonstrated that the subsidy no longer confers a benefit on the exporter involved.
V zvezi s to trditvijo se opozarja na navedbo iz člena 15 osnovne uredbe, da se ne uvedejo nobeni ukrepi, če se subvencija ukine ali če se dokaže, da subvencija zadevnemu izvozniku ne zagotavlja več nobenih ugodnosti.
With respect to the submitted documentation relevant to the EFS facility it is noted that indeed the decision of the State Bank of Pakistan states that banks may not allow financing facilities for PET under this scheme.
Glede na predloženo dokumentacijo v zvezi s shemo EFS se ugotavlja, da odločitev državne banke Pakistana dejansko navaja, da banke ne smejo zagotoviti možnosti financiranja za PET v okviru te sheme.
The relevant text also states that existing facilities granted to exporters will remain valid up to the maturity date of the respective loans while the export performance of companies will be taken into account for the companies’ borrowing during 2009-2010 and for entitlements up to 2011.
Zadevno besedilo tudi navaja, da bodo obstoječe možnosti, zagotovljene izvoznikom, veljavne do datuma zapadlosti zadevnih posojil, medtem ko se bo opravljeni izvoz družb upošteval pri posojilih družb v obdobju 2009–2010 in pri njihovi upravičenosti do leta 2011.
Account taken of the above, it is concluded that the parties were in a position to demonstrate that the EFS scheme no longer confers any benefit on the exporter involved.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega se sklene, da sta strani lahko dokazali, da shema EFS zadevnemu izvozniku ne zagotavlja več nobenih ugodnosti.
Thus the conditions lay down in Article 15 of the basic Regulation are fulfilled and the claims made were considered warranted.
Pogoji iz člena 15 osnovne uredbe so torej izpolnjeni, navedene trditve pa se obravnavajo kot upravičene.
It was therefore concluded that this scheme should not be countervailed.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da se proti shemi ne bi smelo uvesti izravnalnega ukrepa.
It is recalled that the rate used in the calculation is the commercial interest rate applied during the IP in Pakistan, as sourced from the website of the State Bank of Pakistan.
Opozarja se, da je obrestna mera, uporabljena v izračunu, komercialna obrestna mera, ki se je uporabljala v OP v Pakistanu, kot je bila navedena na spletni strani državne banke Pakistana.
With regards to the denominator in the subsidy calculation, it is noted that the precondition to avail of the scheme is either the fulfilment of specific export transactions or the overall export performance.
V zvezi z imenovalcem v izračunu subvencije se ugotavlja, da je predpogoj za koriščenje sheme izpolnjevanje posebnih izvoznih transakcij ali skupen opravljen izvoz.
In the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (134) to (148) of the provisional Regulation, as modified in recitals (75) to (78) above, are hereby confirmed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo drugih pripomb, se ugotovitve v zvezi s to shemo, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah (134) do (148) začasne uredbe in spremenjene v uvodnih izjavah (75) do (78) zgoraj, potrdijo.
Finance under F.E. Circular No 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan
Financiranje na podlagi Okrožnice F.E. št. 25 državne banke Pakistana
Both parties submitted that there is no intervention of the State Bank of Pakistan in this scheme, that commercial banks provide financing in foreign currency without preferential interest rates and that the scheme is not contingent upon export performance since both exporters and importers may use it.
Obe strani sta navedli, da državna banka Pakistana v to shemo ne posega, da komercialne banke zagotavljajo sredstva v tuji valuti brez preferencialnih obrestnih mer in da shema ni pogojena z opravljenim izvozom, ker jo lahko uporabljajo izvozniki in uvozniki.
The arguments provided were analysed in the light of the relevant legal provisions and practical implementation of the scheme and they were found warranted.
Predložene trditve so bile analizirane ob upoštevanju ustreznih zakonskih določb in praktičnega izvajanja sheme, pri čemer je bilo ugotovljeno, da so upravičene.
It was therefore concluded that this scheme should not be countervailed. Since the scheme under F.E.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da se proti shemi ne bi smelo uvesti izravnalnega ukrepa.
Circular No 25 of the State Bank of Pakistan will not be countervailed, it is not necessary to respond to the corresponding disclosure comments.
Ker proti shemi na podlagi Okrožnice F.E. št. 25 državne banke Pakistana ne bo uveden izravnalni ukrep, ni potrebno odgovarjati na zadevne pripombe o razkritju.
Account taken the above, the definitive amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the sole cooperating Pakistani exporting producer is 5,15 %.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega dokončni znesek subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi v skladu z določbami osnovne uredbe, izražen ad valorem, znaša za edinega sodelujočega pakistanskega proizvajalca izvoznika 5,15 %.
The Government of the UAE (GUAE) and the cooperating exporting producer submitted comments on the following schemes, countervailed in the provisional Regulation:
Vlada ZAE in sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik sta predložila pripombe v zvezi z naslednjima shemama, proti katerima so bili v začasni uredbi uvedeni izravnalni ukrepi:
Federal Law No 1 of 1979
Zvezni zakon št. 1 iz leta 1979
Free Trade Zone (FTZ).
območje proste trgovine (OPT).