natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission services informed all parties concerned by means of a note put in the file open for consultation by interested parties advising of the possible inclusion of the other CN code in the proceeding.
Službe Komisije so o morebitni vključitvi druge oznake KN v postopek obvestile vse zadevne strani z obvestilom, danim v dokumentacijo, odprto za posvetovanje zainteresiranih strani.
However, as stated above, aluminium wheels which genuinely are intended for trailers and therefore are covered by CN code 87169090, were not covered by the Notice of Initiation.
A kot je navedeno zgoraj, aluminijasta kolesa, ki so dejansko namenjena za priklopna vozila in so zato zajeta v oznaki KN 87169090, niso bila zajeta v Obvestilu o začetku.
It can therefore not be excluded that certain operators that produce and or trade in such wheels did not come forward in this investigation since they expected that such imports would not be covered, and thus were not aware of the abovementioned note.
Zato ni mogoče izključiti, da se nekateri izvajalci, ki proizvajajo taka kolesa in/ali trgujejo z njimi, niso javili v tej preiskavi, ker pričakujejo, da tak uvoz ne bo zajet in tako niso vedeli za zgoraj navedeno opozorilo.
Under those circumstances, it is not appropriate to include such wheels in the proceeding.
V teh okoliščinah ni primerno, da bi ta kolesa vključili v postopek.
On the other hand, since there appears to be an especially high risk of circumvention with the use of the aforementioned CN code, it is appropriate to introduce a TARIC code with which the development of the level of imports of wheels under that code can be precisely monitored.
Po drugi strani pa se zdi, da je zaradi posebno visokega tveganja izogibanja uporabi zgoraj navedene oznake KN primerno uvesti oznako TARIC, s katero se lahko natančno opazuje razvoj ravni uvoza koles pod to oznako.
On the basis of Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation, a provision to this effect is included in the operative part of this Regulation.
Na podlagi člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe se v normativni del te uredbe vključi ustrezna določba.
MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET), INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (IT) AND ANALOGUE COUNTRY
TRŽNOGOSPODARSKA OBRAVNAVA (TGO), INDIVIDUALNA OBRAVNAVA (IO) IN PRIMERLJIVA DRŽAVA
All sampled exporting producers contested the provisional findings as set out in recitals (26) to (53) of the Provisional Regulation.
Vsi vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki so nasprotovali začasnim ugotovitvam, navedenim v uvodnih izjavah (26) do (53) začasne uredbe.
First, it has to be underlined that in the PRC, primary aluminium accounts for more than 50 % of the cost of production of an aluminium wheel.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da v LRK primarni aluminij pomeni več kot 50 % stroškov proizvodnje aluminijastih koles.
Three of the four sampled companies have claimed that the decision to deny MET should be individual and company specific whereas in the present case the Commission, by stating that there is State interference in decisions concerning the acquisition of the main raw material (aluminium) as indicated in recitals (30) to (37) of the provisional Regulation, has denied MET on a general country-wide basis.
Tri od štirih vzorčenih družb so trdile, da mora biti odločitev, da se zavrne TGO, individualna in se nanašati na posamezno družbo, ker je v tej zadevi Komisija z navedbo, da obstaja vmešavanje države v odločitve glede pridobivanja glavne surovine (aluminija), kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od (30) do (37) začasne uredbe, zavrnila TGO na splošni ravni države.
This argument cannot be accepted; indeed the analysis made by the Commission has been made individually for each sampled producer.
Tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti; analiza, ki jo je opravila Komisija, je bila narejena individualno za vsakega vzorčenega proizvajalca.
It is true the Commission has reached the same conclusion for the four of them but this is due to the fact that there is State interference in the decision making process of each of them as explained in recitals (30) to (37) of the provisional Regulation.
Res je, da je Komisija prišla do enake sklepne ugotovitve za štiri od njih, vendar je to zaradi dejstva, da se država vmešava v odločanje vsake od njih, kot je razloženo v uvodnih izjavah od (30) do (37) začasne uredbe.
The Commission would have not arrived to the same conclusion for any company operating in the PRC showing that it acquires the vast majority of the aluminium alloy it consumes at London Metal Exchange (LME) prices with the usual mechanisms used by any company in the sector established in the rest of the world.
Komisija ne bi prišla do enake sklepne ugotovitve za nobeno družbo, ki deluje v LRK in dokazuje, da veliko večino aluminijeve zlitine, ki jo porabi, pridobi po cenah Londonske borze barvnih kovin (LME) z običajnimi mehanizmi, ki jih uporablja katera koli družba v tem sektorju, ustanovljena drugje po svetu.
If this were to be the case, it would have been possible for this company to be granted MET even if established in the PRC in case of fulfilment of the other Criteria.
Če bi šlo za to, bi bilo taki družbi mogoče odobriti TGO, čeprav bi bila ustanovljena v LRK, če bi izpolnjevala druga merila.
Having regard to the above, the conclusions drawn in the said recitals and in recital (48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega se potrdijo sklepne ugotovitve iz navedenih uvodnih izjav in uvodne izjave (48) začasne uredbe.
Concerning State interference in other business decisions, none of the three groups referred to in recital (38) of the provisional Regulation has provided additional evidence that could allow arriving to different conclusions.
V zvezi z vmešavanjem države v druge poslovne odločitve ni nobena od treh skupin, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (38) začasne uredbe, zagotovila dodatnih dokazov, ki bi omogočili drugačne ugotovitve.
In particular, it has been argued that that the judgement of the General Court in case Zheijiang Xinan v Council [3] provides that ‘the concept of’ significant State interference ‘cannot be assimilated to just any influence on the activities of an undertaking or to just any involvement in its decision-making process, but must be understood as meaning action by the State which is such as to render the undertaking’s decisions incompatible with market economy conditions’.
Posebej se je utemeljevalo, da sodba Splošnega sodišča v zadevi Zheijiang Xinan proti Svetu [3] določa, da „izraza ‚večje vmešavanje države‘ ni mogoče izenačiti z vsakim vplivom na dejavnosti podjetja ali z vsako vpletenostjo v njegov postopek odločanja, ampak ga je treba razumeti kot ukrep državnih organov, ki lahko povzroči, da odločitve podjetja niso v skladu s pogoji tržnega gospodarstva“.
Having regard to this judgement, exporters claim that the European Institutions should apply it and analyze in detail whether the actions taken by the State when running the company are incompatible with market economy conditions.
Ob upoštevanju te sodbe izvozniki trdijo, da bi jo morale evropske institucije uporabiti in podrobno analizirati, ali so ukrepi, ki jih sprejme država pri vodenju družbe, skladni s pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
In this respect, it has to be pointed out that the said judgement is presently under appeal.
V tem smislu je treba poudariti, da je proti navedeni sodbi zdaj vložena pritožba.
Therefore, the said judgement of the General Court shall take effect only as from the date of decision on the appeal.
Zato bo navedena sodba Splošnega sodišča začela veljati šele na dan odločbe o pritožbi.
Consequently, the Institutions are in a position to maintain that State interference found in the present case is sufficient to conclude that Criterion 1 is not fulfilled.
Zato lahko institucije menijo, da vmešavanje države, ugotovljeno v tem primeru, zadošča za ugotovitev, da merilo 1 ni izpolnjeno.
Having regard to the above, the conclusions of recital (38) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega se potrdijo sklepne ugotovitve uvodne izjave (38) začasne uredbe.
None of the two groups which, according to the conclusions reached at provisional stage, did not comply with the requirements of Criterion 2 has contested these provisional conclusions.
Nobena od obeh skupin, ki v skladu s sklepnimi ugotovitvami na začasni stopnji nista izpolnjevali zahtev merila 2, ni ugovarjala tem začasnim ugotovitvam.
It is therefore confirmed, as indicated in recitals (39) and (49) of the provisional Regulation that two of the sampled groups do not have their respective accounts prepared and audited in line with International Accounting Standards.
Zato se potrdi, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (39) in (49) začasne uredbe, da finančna poročila pri dveh od vzorčenih skupin niso bila pripravljena in revidirana v skladu z Mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
It has been claimed by Baoding Lizhong group that Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation explicitly requires that the distortions are caused by the former non-market economy system; the group claimed that since it would have allegedly always operated as privately-held group, distortions cannot be the result of the ‘former’ non-market economy system as the group never operated as State-owned companies.
Skupina Baoding Lizhong je trdila, da člen 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izrecno zahteva, da je izkrivljanje povzročil predhodni sistem netržnega gospodarstva; skupina je trdila, glede na to, da je domnevno vedno poslovala kot zasebna skupina, da izkrivljanje ni moglo biti rezultat „predhodnega“ sistema netržnega gospodarstva, ker skupina nikoli ni poslovala kot družba v državni lasti.
The argument cannot be accepted.
Tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
As established in the present case, production costs and financial situation of companies can be subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system regardless if a company has operated as a Sate-owned company or not.
Kot je ugotovljeno v tem primeru, so lahko proizvodni stroški in finančni položaj družb podvrženi bistvenemu izkrivljanju, ki se prenaša še iz predhodnega sistema netržnega gospodarstva, ne glede na to, ali je družba poslovala kot družba v državni lasti ali ne.
In addition, Baoding Lizhong group, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd and CITIC Dicastal reiterated the arguments already put forward before the adoption of the provisional Regulation and insisted on the fact that the advantages enjoyed by the companies are not significant.
Poleg tega sta skupini Baoding Lizhong, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd in CITIC Dicastal ponovili argumente, ki so bili navedeni že pred sprejetjem začasne uredbe, in sta vztrajali pri dejstvu, da prednosti, ki so jih družbe uživale, niso bile velike.
However, as explained in recital (50) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation revealed that distortions on the financial situation of the groups were significant.
A kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi (50) začasne uredbe, je preiskava razkrila, da so bila izkrivljanja pri finančnem položaju skupin velika.
Furthermore, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd has put forward that tax exemptions granted to foreign companies do not represent a specific subsidy and, according to the WTO case law concerning countervailing measures the burden of proof of specificity is with the investigating authorities [4].
Poleg tega je YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd navedel, da oprostitve davkov, ki se odobravajo tujim družbam, ne pomenijo specifične subvencije in da je v skladu s sodno prakso STO v zvezi z izravnalnimi ukrepi breme dokaza specifičnosti na preiskovalnih organih [4].
In its submission, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd also refers to Article 4(5) of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation [5] which states that ‘any determination of specificity (…) shall be clearly substantiated on the basis of positive evidence’.
V svoji predložitvi se YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. sklicuje tudi na člen 4(5) protisubvencijske osnovne uredbe [5], v katerem je navedeno, da „je treba vsako določitev specifičnosti […] jasno utemeljiti na podlagi trdnih dokazov“.
The company mentions as well Article 4.2(b) of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation (objective criteria or conditions governing the eligibility of a subsidy implicating the specificity does not exist) and Article 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures defining a countervailing duty as ‘a duty levied for the purpose of offsetting any subsidy bestowed directly or indirectly upon the manufacture, production or export of a merchandise’.
Družba omenja tudi člen 4(2)(b) protisubvencijske osnovne uredbe (objektivna merila ali pogoji, ki urejajo upravičenost do subvencije, nakazujejo, da specifičnost ne obstaja) in člen 10 Sporazuma o subvencijah in izravnalnih ukrepih, ki opredeljuje izravnalno dajatev kot „dajatev, ki se lahko uvede zaradi kompenzacije kakršne koli neposredno ali posredno dodeljene subvencije za izdelavo, proizvodnjo, izvoz ali prevoz katerega koli trgovskega blaga“.
Finally, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd suggests that ‘if the Commission Services want to offset subsidies provided by the by the Chinese government, the proper process to do so is through an anti-subsidy investigation’.
Nazadnje, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co. Ltd predlaga kot primeren postopek Komisiji, če želi izravnati subvencije, ki jih zagotavlja kitajska vlada, da to stori v protisubvencijski preiskavi.
Concerning this interpretation of the anti-dumping legislation, it must be said that it is not correct since the criteria of the Anti-Subsidy basic Regulation cannot be applied in the context of a MET analysis.
V zvezi z razlago protidampinške zakonodaje je treba reči, da ni pravilna, kajti merila protisubvencijske osnovne uredbe se ne morejo uporabljati v okviru analize TGO.
The basic Anti-dumping Regulation provides for the examination of whether the production costs and financial situation of firms are not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system and, as stated above, actions that imply the involvement of the State in shaping the business environment through measures that are typical of a non-market economy should be considered as a State influence carried over from the former non-market economy system.
Osnovna protisubvencijska uredba določa preiskavo, ali proizvodni stroški in finančni položaj podjetij niso podvrženi bistvenemu izkrivljanju, ki se prenaša še iz predhodnega sistema netržnega gospodarstva, in, kot je navedeno zgoraj, je treba ukrepe, ki pomenijo vmešavanje države v oblikovanje poslovnega okolja z ukrepi, ki so tipični za netržno gospodarstvo, šteti za vpliv države, ki se prenaša iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
Having regard to the above, the conclusions of recitals (40) to (44) and (50) to (52) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega se potrdijo sklepne ugotovitve uvodnih izjav od (40) do (44) in od (50) do (52) začasne uredbe.
Exporters have reiterated their claims addressed in recitals (46) – (47) of the provisional Regulation that, pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, determination whether the producers meet the criteria to be granted MET shall be made within three months of the initiation of the investigation whereas, in the present case, this determination was made beyond this three months deadline.
Izvozniki so ponovili zahteve, obravnavane v uvodnih izjavah (46) in (47) začasne uredbe, da se na podlagi člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe ocena, ali proizvajalci izpolnjujejo merila, da se jim odobri TGO, sprejme v treh mesecih po začetku preiskave, ker je bila v tem primeru ta odločitev sprejeta po tem trimesečnem roku.
To support their argument exporters quoted the judgement of the General Court in Case T-299/05 [6].
V podporo svojemu argumentu so izvozniki citirali sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-299/05 [6].
In particular, exporters have put forward that, by the time of the sending of the disclosure on MET, the Commission had received all the answers to the anti-dumping questionnaires sent to exporters as well as the answers to the questionnaires sent to the companies established in the analogue country, therefore, being in possession of the data contained in the answers to these questionnaires, the Commission services had all the information necessary to calculate the dumping margin under the regular methodology and under the analogue country methodology.
Izvozniki so navedli zlasti, da je Komisija do takrat, ko je bilo poslano razkritje o TGO, prejela vse odgovore na vprašalnike o protidampingu, ki so bili poslani izvoznikom, kakor tudi odgovore na vprašalnike, poslane družbam, ustanovljenim v primerljivi državi, in je torej imela podatke, ki so bili vsebovani v odgovorih na te vprašalnike, službe Komisije pa so imele vse potrebne informacije za izračun stopnje dampinga po redni metodologiji in metodologiji primerljive države.
The exporters arrive then to the conclusion that, as such, the Commission was in a position to know what the effect of its MET decision would be in terms of the calculation of the dumping margin.
Izvozniki so nato prišli do sklepne ugotovitve, da je Komisija lahko vedela, kakšen bo učinek njene odločitve o TGO na izračun stopnje dampinga.
Having regard to the above, exporters do not exclude that the MET decision was taken on the basis of the effects on dumping.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega izvozniki ne izključujejo, da je bila odločitev o TGO sprejeta na podlagi učinkov na damping.
This argument cannot be accepted.
Tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
First, contrary to what it has been stated, by the time of the sending of the disclosure on MET, the Commission did not have all the information necessary to calculate the dumping margin.
Prvič, v nasprotju s tem, kar je navedeno, Komisija v času pošiljanja razkritja o TGO ni imela vseh informacij, potrebnih za izračun stopnje dampinga.
Indeed, in the circumstances of the present case, the information contained in the answers to the anti-dumping questionnaires and in the questionnaires sent to the companies established in the analogue country was neither complete nor correct and therefore the Commission was not in a position to calculate the dumping margins at that moment.
V tem primeru informacije v odgovorih na vprašalnike o protidampingu in vprašalnike, poslane družbam, ustanovljenim v primerljivi državi, niso bile niti popolne niti pravilne in zato Komisija takrat ni mogla izračunati stopenj dampinga.
Indeed, verification visits had to be carried out to gather information and data which were necessary to make an accurate calculation of the dumping margins.
Dejansko je bilo treba opraviti obiske zaradi preveritve in zbrati informacije in podatke, ki so bili potrebni za pripravo točnega izračuna stopenj dampinga.
These visits only started to take place more than two weeks after the sending of the disclosure on MET.
Ti obiski so se začeli šele več kot dva tedna po pošiljanju razkritja o TGO.
Therefore, in the absence of data obtained during the verification visits, it was materially impossible for the Commission to make dumping calculations before the sending of the disclosure on MET and take MET decision on the basis of the effects on dumping.
Zato je bilo brez podatkov, pridobljenih med preveritvenimi obiski, praktično nemogoče, da bi Komisija pripravila izračune dampinga, preden je poslala razkritje o TGO, in da bi sprejela odločitev o TGO na podlagi učinkov na damping.
Second, the exporters have not presented any evidence to demonstrate that the decision with regard to MET would have been different had it been adopted within the three moths period.
Drugič, izvozniki niso predložili nobenega dokaza, ki bi pokazal, da bi bila odločitev v zvezi s TGO drugačna, če bi bila sprejeta v trimesečnem obdobju.
The finding that all companies that had requested MET should be denied MET, as established in recital (53) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ugotovitev, da je treba vsem družbam, ki so zahtevale TGO, to zavrniti, kot se ugotavlja v uvodni izjavi (53) začasne uredbe, se potrdi.
Both sampled groups which were provisionally denied IT due to state interference which was found to be such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates contested the provisional finding as set out in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation.
Obe vzorčeni skupini, ki jima je bila začasno zavrnjena IO zaradi vmešavanja države, za katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da omogoča izogibanje ukrepom, če se posameznim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje, sta nasprotovali začasnim ugotovitvam iz uvodne izjave (55) začasne uredbe.
Baoding Lizhong claims that there is no State interference and it also puts forward that from the wording of Article 9(5)(c) and (e) it does not suffice that there is some State interference for IT to be refused and that the explicit wording of Article 9(5) allows that there is some State interference and still to grant IT provided that there is still sufficient independence from the State and that the State interference is not such as to permit circumvention.
Baoding Lizhong trdi, da ni nobenega vmešavanja države in navaja tudi, da glede na besedilo člena 9(5)(c) in (e) nekaj vmešavanja države ni dovolj, da bi se zavrnila IO, in da besedilo člena 9(5) izrecno dopušča nekaj vmešavanja države in kljub temu odobritev IO, če je še vedno dovolj neodvisnosti od države in če vmešavanja države ni toliko, da bi omogočalo izogibanje.
This would only be the case if State officials were holding a majority of key functions and could interfere with daily business decisions.
To bi veljalo samo v primeru, če bi imeli državni uradniki večino ključnih funkcij in bi se vmešavali v vsakodnevne poslovne odločitve.
The second group claimed that the majority of its shares belongs to private persons and the risk of circumvention is non-existing because the group supplies exclusively car makers in the OEM market and for each wheel model the contract with a car-maker stipulates specifically the production site which is audited prior to, as well as in the course of the life of the contract.
Druga skupina je trdila, da je večina njenih deležev v lasti zasebnikov in da tveganje izogibanja ne obstaja, ker skupina oskrbuje izključno izdelovalce avtomobilov na trgu OEM in ker pogodba z izdelovalcem avtomobilov določa za vsak model koles posebej proizvodno enoto, ki se opravi presoja pred tem pa tudi v času veljavnosti pogodbe.
Regarding the claims made by Baoding Lizhong, the risk of circumvention has been re-examined.
V zvezi z zahtevami, ki jih je postavil Baoding Lizhong, je bilo ponovno preučeno tveganje izogibanja.
Indeed, the State interference is not such as to permit circumvention.
Vmešavanje države res ni tolikšno, da bi dovoljevalo izogibanje.
Accordingly, IT can be granted to Baoding Lizhong.
Skladno s tem se skupini Baoding Lizhong lahko odobri IO.
As regards CITIC Dicastal, it is a State-owned company directly controlled by the State (the majority of its shares belong to the State).
Skupina CITIC Dicastal je družba v državni lasti, ki jo neposredno nadzira država (večina njenih deležev pripada državi).
The State interference is such that it permits circumvention of measures if it obtains a different rate of duty.
Vmešavanje države je tolikšno, da omogoča izogibanje ukrepom, če pridobi drugačno stopnjo dajatve.
In other words, production of other State-controlled companies could be re-directed through CITIC Dicastal.
Z drugimi besedami, preko CITIC Dicastal bi se lahko preusmerila proizvodnja drugih družb pod nadzorom države.
Concerning the other argument put forward by CITIC Dicastal, the fact that it supplies exclusively car makers in the OEM market does not prevent it from supplying to other clients in the future.
V zvezi z drugim argumentom, ki ga navaja CITIC Dicastal, pa dejstvo, da oskrbuje izključno izdelovalce avtomobilov na trgu OEM, ne preprečuje, da ne bi mogel v prihodnje oskrbovati drugih strank.
It can therefore be concluded that CITIC Dicastal should be denied IT.
Zato se lahko sklene, da je treba družbi CITIC Dicastal zavrniti IO.
A number of interested parties have contested the choice of Turkey as analogue country.
Številne zainteresirane strani so nasprotovale izbiri Turčije kot primerljive države.