natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Both the substantial increase of Since Hardware’s import volume and its market share can be explained by the fact that it has been the only Chinese producer that has had a zero anti-dumping duty and therefore its market opportunities have actually improved since the imposition of provisional duties in 2006.
Znatno povečanje obsega uvoza družbe Since Hardware in njenega tržnega deleža je mogoče razložiti z dejstvom, da je bila družba edini kitajski proizvajalec s protidampinško dajatvijo nič, zato so se po uvedbi začasnih dajatev leta 2006 njene tržne priložnosti dejansko izboljšale.
This can also be confirmed by the pronounced opposite, positive development of their import volumes as compared to the deteriorating trend of the import volumes of the other Chinese and Ukrainian producers.
To potrjuje tudi izrazito nasproten in pozitivno naravnan razvoj obsega uvoza družbe v primerjavi s trendom slabšanja pri drugih kitajskih in ukrajinskih proizvajalcih.
Indeed when looking at the period considered, the following converse evolution of market shares has been found:
V obravnavanem obdobju lahko ugotovimo naslednji nasprotni razvoj tržnih deležev:
Market share of imports of ironing boards produced by Since Hardware
Tržni delež uvoza likalnih desk, ki jih proizvaja družba Since Hardware
It is clear from the above tables that Since Hardware has managed to significantly increase its import volumes and market share [10].
Iz zgornjih preglednic je razvidno, da je družba Since Hardware uspela znatno povečati obseg uvoza in tržni delež [9].
In addition, the Union industry has claimed to have lost numerous client orders to Since Hardware in the past years.
Poleg tega je industrija Unije trdila, da je v zadnjih letih zaradi družbe Since Hardware izgubila naročila številnih kupcev.
Indeed clear indications have been found that certain important customers of the Union industry have changed suppliers, sourcing more products from Since Hardware and fewer from the Union industry than before.
Dejansko so bili ugotovljeni jasni znaki, da so nekatere pomembne stranke industrije Unije zamenjale dobavitelja ter da so več izdelkov kot prej naročale pri družbi Since Hardware in manj pri industriji Unije.
For instance, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that a Union producer sold a significant number of pieces to a Union customer in the IP of the first investigation (2005), whereas in the current investigation it has stated that it sold considerably less (between 10 % and 30 % of that quantity) to the same customer in the current IP.
Iz podatkov, ki jih je Komisija zbrala v prvi preiskavi, je na primer razvidno, da je v OP prve preiskave (leta 2005) proizvajalec Unije stranki v Uniji prodal večje število kosov, medtem ko je v sedanji preiskavi navedel, da je v sedanjem OP isti stranki prodal znatno manjše število kosov (med 10 in 30 % prejšnje količine).
By contrast, Since Hardware sold a small number of pieces to this Union customer in the IP of the first investigation, but sold much more (between 300 % and 500 % of that quantity) to that customer during the IP of the current investigation.
Nasprotno pa je družba Since Hardware v OP prve preiskave tej stranki v Uniji prodala majhno število kosov, v OP sedanje preiskave pa je bilo število kosov, prodanih tej stranki, precej večje (med 300 in 500 % prejšnje količine).
Furthermore, the data gathered by the Commission in the first investigation show that the sales of an Union producer to another Union customer in the IP of the first investigation dropped considerably (between 30 % and 50 %) in the current IP.
Poleg tega podatki, ki jih je Komisija zbrala v prvi preiskavi, kažejo, da je prodaja proizvajalca Unije drugi stranki v Uniji v OP prve preiskave močno padla v sedanjem OP (med 30 in 50 %).
Again by contrast, whereas Since Hardware sold nothing to this customer in the IP of the first investigation, it sold a substantial quantity in the current IP.
Nasprotno pa je družba Since Hardware, ki v OP prve preiskave tej stranki ni prodala ničesar, v obdobju sedanjega OP tej stranki prodala znatno količino.
That quantity is between 60 % and 80 % of the quantity by which the Union producer’s sales to that customer went down between the IP of the first investigation and the current IP.
Ta količina znaša med 60 in 80 % količine, za kolikor se je med OP prve preiskave in sedanjim OP znižala prodaja proizvajalca Unije tej stranki.
Undercutting
Nelojalno nižanje prodajnih cen
For the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the import prices of Since Hardware were compared to the Union industry’s prices, on the basis of weighted averages for comparable product types during the IP.
Za namen analize nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen je bila izvedena primerjava uvoznih cen družbe Since Hardware in cen industrije Unije na podlagi tehtanih povprečij za primerljive vrste izdelka v OP.
The Union industry’s prices were adjusted to an ex-works level, and compared to CIF Union frontier import prices, plus customs duties where applicable.
Cene industrije Unije so bile prilagojene ravni franko tovarna in primerjane z uvoznimi cenami CIF meja Unije skupaj s carino, kadar je bilo to ustrezno.
The average undercutting margin found for Since Hardware, expressed as a percentage of the Union industry’s price, is 16,1 %.
Povprečna stopnja nelojalno znižanih prodajnih cen, ugotovljenih za družbo Since Hardware, izražena kot odstotek cene industrije Unije, je 16,1 %.
It is noted that the Union industry’s prices were found to be overall loss-making in the IP.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bilo ugotovljeno, da so cene industrije Unije v OP v celoti ustvarjale izgubo.
The above-mentioned facts show that the Union industry suffered injury due to the dumped quantities sold by Since Hardware on the Union market which might otherwise have been supplied by the Union industry.
Zgoraj navedena dejstva kažejo, da industrija Unije trpi škodo zaradi dampinških količin, ki jih je družba Since Hardware prodala na trgu Unije in bi jih drugače dobavila industrija Unije.
As shown above, Since Hardware offered its products, during the IP, at heavily dumped prices which strongly undercut the Union industry’s prices.
Kot je prikazano zgoraj, je v OP družba Since Hardware ponujala svoje izdelke po izrazito dampinških cenah, ki so močno nelojalno nižale cene industrije Unije.
As a result, it succeeded to sell quantities during the IP which were much higher than, for instance, in 2005 or 2006.
Zaradi tega je v OP prodala količine, ki so bile znatno višje kot na primer leta 2005 ali 2006.
Since Hardware thus caused the injury which was found above.
Družba Since Hardware je torej povzročila škodo, kot je bila ugotovljena zgoraj.
One importer stated that the EUR/USD exchange rate was the cause of the strong presence of Since Hardware ironing boards on the Union market rather than dumping practices.
Eden od uvoznikov je trdil, da je bil za močno navzočnost likalnih desk družbe Since Hardware na trgu Unije kriv menjalni tečaj EUR/USD in ne izvajanje dampinga.
However, if this was true, all imports invoiced in USD would have been advantaged in their competition with goods invoiced in euro.
Če bi bilo to res, bi bil vsak uvoz, za katerega bi bila izdana faktura v USD, ugodnejši od uvoza blaga, za katerega bi bila izdana faktura v eurih.
Instead, as set out in recitals (64) and (65), imports from other Chinese and Ukrainian producers, also selling in USD, have constantly decreased between 2006 and the IP i.e. in the period during which the EUR/USD exchange rates have every so often changed, in contrast with the significant increase of imports from Since Hardware throughout the same period.
Po drugi strani pa se je, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (67) in (68), uvoz drugih kitajskih in ukrajinskih proizvajalcev, ki prav tako prodajajo v USD, med letom 2006 in OP, tj. obdobjem, ko so se menjalni tečaji EUR/USD pogosto spreminjali, stalno zmanjševal v nasprotju z znatnim povečanjem uvoza družbe Since Hardware v istem obdobju.
No further comments were received.
Prejeta ni bila nobena dodatna pripomba.
It is therefore concluded that no factor appears to exist that could break the causal link between the dumped imports from Since Hardware and their contribution to injury which was found above.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da ni drugih dejavnikov, ki bi lahko razbili vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom družbe Since Hardware in njegovim prispevkom k škodi, ki je bila ugotovljena zgoraj.
As mentioned in recital (12), one trade association cooperated in the investigation.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (15), je v preiskavi sodelovalo eno trgovinsko združenje.
In addition, the cooperating Union producers and importers were also asked to comment on whether in their view the imposition of a possible anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would change the conclusion regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to (62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.
Sodelujoči proizvajalci in uvozniki Unije so bili tudi zaprošeni, da predložijo pripombe, ali bi po njihovem mnenju protidampinška dajatev, ki bi se uvedla za družbo Since Hardware, pripomogla k spremembi sklepa v zvezi z interesom Unije, ki je bil sprejet v uvodnih izjavah (51) do (62) Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007.
According to the Union producers, the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would not change the conclusions on Union interest as established by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007.
Po mnenju proizvajalcev Unije uvedba protidampinške dajatve za družbo Since Hardware ne bi spremenila sklepov v zvezi z interesom Unije, kot je opredeljeno v Uredbi (ES) št. 452/2007.
The cooperating trade association stated that imposing an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would normally have a negative impact on the profitability of the importers and retailers or distributors concerned.
Sodelujoče trgovinsko združenje je navedlo, da bi imela uvedba protidampinške dajatve za družbo Since Hardware običajno negativen vpliv na dobičkonosnost zadevnih uvoznikov in trgovcev na drobno ali distributerjev.
However, according to the trade association, their members – including large retail stores – also confirmed that the product under investigation is one upon which price increases such as those resulting from anti-dumping measures can be passed on without impacting substantially on consumers’ perception.
Vendar pa so po mnenju trgovinskega združenja tudi njihovi člani, vključno z velikimi prodajalnami, potrdili, da povišanje cene, kot je tisto, ki izhaja iz protidampinških ukrepov, za izdelek, ki je predmet preiskave, ne bi pomembno vplivalo na zaznavanje potrošnikov.
Therefore, no concrete element was submitted which would change the conclusions on Union interest as established by the above two Regulations.
Zato ni bil predložen noben konkreten element, ki bi spremenil sklepe v zvezi z interesom Unije, kot je opredeljeno v obeh zgoraj navedenih uredbah.
In view of the above it is concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware would leave the conclusions regarding Union interest reached in recitals (51) to(62) of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 substantially unaffected.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se sklene, da uvedba protidampinške dajatve za družbo Since Hardware ne bi bistveno vplivala na sklepe v zvezi z interesom Unije iz uvodnih izjav (51) do (62) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 452/2007.
No reasons were put forward as to why that analysis would not apply, mutatis mutandis, to the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on Since Hardware.
Razlogi, zakaj se navedena analiza ne bi smiselno uporabljala za uvedbo protidampinške dajatve za družbo Since Hardware, niso bili predstavljeni.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
Written and oral representations were made following final disclosure of the findings from the Union industry and from Since Hardware.
Po končnem razkritju ugotovitev sta industrija Unije in družba Since Hardware predložile pisna in ustna stališča.
The Union industry agrees with the findings disclosed.
Industrija Unije se strinja z razkritimi ugotovitvami.
Since Hardware’s comments were examined, however, none of them were such as to alter the above conclusions.
Po pregledu pripomb družbe Since Hardware pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da nobena od njih ne predstavlja podlage za spremembo zgoraj navedenih sklepov.
The main arguments raised by Since Hardware were as follows.
Glavni argumenti družbe Since Hardware so bili naslednji.
Since Hardware reiterated its earlier claims concerning the alleged illegality of initiating an original investigation against one company and concerning the allegedly incorrect MET findings.
Družba Since Hardware je ponovila predhodne trditve o domnevni nezakonitosti v zvezi z začetkom prvotne preiskave proti eni družbi in o domnevno nepravilnih ugotovitvah TGO.
These claims have been described and rebutted in recitals (4) to (10) and (33) to (41).
Te trditve so opisane in ovržene v uvodnih izjavah od (10) in (36) do (44).
Regarding some detailed points made by Since Hardware on the first point (a number of which were made during a hearing) the following can be observed:
Glede podrobnih navedb družbe Since Hardware v zvezi s prvo točko (številne so bile podane med zaslišanjem) je mogoče ugotoviti:
Since Hardware argued that the last sentence of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation is not a provision implementing any provision of the WTO AD Agreement, and as such cannot be affected by any findings made by a WTO Panel.
Družba Since Hardware je trdila, da zadnji stavek člena 9(3) osnovne uredbe ni izvedbena določba katere koli določbe Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, zato ugotovitve Odbora STO na njega kot takega ne morejo vplivati.
However, Article 9(3) does not oblige the Institutions to use a review to investigate claims of dumping against companies for whom, during an original investigation, de minimis or no dumping was found.
Vendar pa člen 9(3) institucij ne zavezuje, da s pomočjo pregledov preiskujejo trditve o dampingu v zvezi z družbo, za katero se je v prvotni preiskavi ugotovilo, da ima de minimis stopnjo dampinga oziroma dampinga ne izvaja. Člen le določa, da se trditve „lahko“ preiskujejo v naknadni preiskavi, ki se izvede v skladu s členom 11 osnovne uredbe.
It merely foresees that these ‘may’ be investigated in any subsequent review carried out pursuant to Article 11of the basic Regulation.
Vendar pa je jasno, da je po sprejemu navedene določbe pritožbeni organ STO v poročilu ugotovil, da bi to pomenilo kršitev Protidampinškega sporazuma STO ADA.
It is clear, however, that after the adoption of that provision, the WTO Appellate Body report, has established that doing so would violate the WTO ADA.
Institucije zato lahko in je njihova dolžnost [10], da uporabljajo prožnost, ki jo zagotavlja beseda „lahko“, in da takšnih trditev ne preiskujejo s pomočjo pregleda.
Since Hardware repeated that in its view an original investigation against one company would not be possible under the basic Regulation.
Družba Since Hardware je ponovila, da po njenem mnenju prvotna preiskava proti eni družbi na podlagi osnovne uredbe ni mogoča.
On top of what has been said on this in recitals (5) and (8) above, the following can be noted.
Poleg vsega že povedanega o tej zadevi v uvodnih izjavah (7) in (8) zgoraj pa je treba opozoriti na naslednje.
It is true that many of the provisions quoted by Since Hardware are phrased in a manner which reflects a normal situation, namely an original investigation against a country as a whole.
Drži, da so mnoge določbe, ki jih citira Since Harward oblikovane na način, ki temelji na običajnih razmerah, tj. prvotni preiskavi proti državi kot celoti.
However, Since Hardware has not been able to point to any provision which prohibits an original investigation against only one company in the specific circumstances of this case.
Vendar pa družba Since Hardware ni mogla izpostaviti nobene določbe, ki v posebnih okoliščinah tega primera prepoveduje prvotno preiskavo proti le eni družbi.
Since Hardware argued that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits the bringing into conformity with WTO dispute settlement rulings of existing anti-dumping measures, but nothing else.
Družba Since Hardware je trdila, da Uredba (ES) št. 1515/2001 dovoljuje uskladitev obstoječih protidampinških ukrepov z odločitvami STO o reševanju sporov in nič drugega.
This, firstly, means, that Since Hardware does not object to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001, which formally excludes Since Hardware from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in a manner which makes clear that on the basis of that Regulation no duty will apply to its imports.
To pomeni, prvič, da družba Since Hardware ne nasprotuje členu 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 1515/2001, ki družbo Since Hardware formalno izključuje iz obsega Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 na način, da je jasno, da se na podlagi navedene uredbe za uvoz družbe ne bodo uporabljale dajatve.
Regarding Since Hardware’s allegation that Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 permits nothing else, it should however be emphasised that this Regulation is based on the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s trditvijo družbe Since Hardware, da Uredba (ES) št. 1515/2001 ne dovoljuje ničesar drugega, pa je treba poudariti, da tudi ta uredba temelji na osnovni uredbi.
In particular, it is based on the fact, as explained above, that nothing in that Regulation prohibits conducting an original investigation against only one company in the specific circumstances of this case.
Kot je razloženo zgoraj, zlasti temelji na dejstvu, da v posebnih okoliščinah tega primera nič v navedeni uredbi ne prepoveduje izvajanja prvotne preiskave proti le eni družbi.
As suggested by Since Hardware, certain language in the disclosure which may have been confusing on this point has been removed.
Na predlog družbe Since Hardware je bil jezik, ki bi lahko v tej zadevi povzročil zmedo, odstranjen iz razkritja.
Since Hardware claimed to be discriminated against, since in its view the findings in the WTO Appellate Body report are equally applicable to companies that received a zero duty in a review investigation.
Družba Since Hardware je trdila, da je diskriminirana, ker se po njenem mnenju ugotovitve v poročilu pritožbenega organa STO enako uporabljajo za družbe, ki so v preiskavi v zvezi s pregledom prejele dajatev nič.
The most important point that can be made here is that the WTO Appellate Body report simply does not concern that situation.
Najpomembnejše pa je, da se poročilo pritožbenega organa STO ne nanaša na ta položaj.
Those companies are therefore in a different situation.
Navedene družbe so zato v drugačnem položaju.
Since Hardware argued that the Commission was conducting a de facto review of its zero duty.
Družba Since Hardware je trdila, da je Komisija opravljala de facto pregled njene dajatve nič.
This view cannot be accepted.
To stališče ni sprejemljivo.
Firstly, contrary to what Since Hardware alleges, the injury analysis conducted above is not limited to confirming that during the first investigation injury was found.
Prvič, v nasprotju s trditvami družbe Since Hardware zgoraj omenjena analiza škode ni omejena na potrditev, da je bila v prvi preiskavi ugotovljena škoda.
On the contrary, it focuses on the actual detrimental effects of Since Hardware’s behaviour after that investigation on the Union industry, whilst taking into account that a normal injury analysis is not possible in this case.
Analiza škode se nasprotno osredotoča na dejanske škodljive učinke obnašanja družbe Since Hardware po preiskavi industrije Unije, ob upoštevanju, da v tem primeru običajna analiza škode ni mogoča.
Secondly, the fact that the duty will expire earlier than after the normal five years does not mean that the investigation is a de facto review.
Drugič, dejstvo, da bo dajatev ukinjena prej kot v običajnih petih letih, ne pomeni, da je preiskava de facto pregled.
In quite a number of investigations, for various reasons, durations of less than five years have been adopted.
V številnih preiskavah je bilo iz različnih razlogov sprejeto trajanje, krajše od pet let.
In this case, the Institutions consider that, whereas on the one hand Since Hardware should not derive any benefits from having started dumping after the first investigation, it should, on the other hand, not suffer any unjustified negative effects.
V tem primeru so institucije mnenja, da glede na to, da družba Since Hardware od dampinga, ki ga je začela po prvi preiskavi, ne bi smela imeti koristi, prav tako ne bi smela trpeti neupravičenih negativnih učinkov.
For instance, should, no expiry review be requested for Regulation (EC) No 452/2007, it would appear discriminatory to continue the duty on Since Hardware after the expiry of that Regulation.
Če se na primer ne bi zahteval pregled za Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 452/2007, bi bilo za družbo Since Hardware diskriminatorno, če bi dajatev veljala tudi po izteku navedene uredbe.
Since Hardware argued that its rights are infringed by the choice for an original investigation, because if it had been investigated by means of a review, Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation would apply (there is an obligation, in a review, to use the same methodology as that used in the original investigation).
Družba Since Hardware je trdila, da so bile zaradi odločitve za prvotno preiskavo kršene njene pravice, ker bi se v primeru preiskave s pomočjo pregleda uporabljal člen 11(9) osnovne uredbe (obstaja obveznost, da se v pregledu uporablja enaka metodologija kot med prvotno preiskavo).
However, Since Hardware has not pointed to any issue which would indicate that in this investigation the Institutions used a methodology which was different to that used in the first investigation Secondly, even if Since Hardware could point to the use of a different methodology, this would be a result of the fact that the WTO Appellate Body report leads to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the Institutions to not investigate the claims against Since Hardware by means of a review.
Vendar pa družba Since Hardware ni izpostavila nobene zadeve, v zvezi s katero bi bilo jasno, da so institucije uporabile drugo metodologijo, kot v prvi preiskavi. Drugič, tudi če bi družba Since Hardware lahko izpostavila kakršno koli uporabo drugačne metodologije, bi bilo to zaradi dejstva, da se iz Poročila pritožbenega organa STO sklepa, da so bile institucije dolžne, da trditev proti družbi Since Hardware ne preiskujejo s pomočjo pregleda.
Moreover, without prejudice to the validity of such claims, it is clear that such a course of action could lead to damage claims by the companies concerned against the Institutions.
Poleg tega je brez vpliva na veljavnost takšnih trditev jasno, da lahko takšen potek ukrepov pripelje do odškodninskih zahtevkov zadevnih družb proti institucijam.
Regarding the MET findings, Since Hardware argued that it had an excessive burden to prove that it complied with the criteria for MET, in particular as far as State interference in the prices of its main raw materials were concerned.
Glede ugotovitev TGO je družba Since Hardware trdila, da ji je dokazovanje, da izpolnjuje merila za TGO, pomenilo pretirano breme, zlasti v zvezi z vmešavanjem države v cene njenih surovin.
However, MET is an exception to the general rule and any derogation from, or exception to, a general rule must be interpreted strictly.
Vendar TGO predstavlja izjemo od splošnega pravila, vsako odstopanje ali izjemo od splošnega pravila pa je treba natančno razložiti.
MET can only be granted if it is shown that market economy conditions prevail for the exporting producer in question.
TGO se lahko odobri le, če se dokaže, da za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika prevladujejo razmere tržnega gospodarstva.
As already mentioned in recital (37), the burden of proof lies with the exporting producer wishing to avail itself of market economy status.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v uvodni izjavi (40), nosi dokazno breme proizvajalec izvoznik, ki želi izkoristiti položaj tržnega gospodarstva.
The claim must contain sufficient evidence.
Zahtevek mora vsebovati ustrezne dokaze.
There is no obligation for the Commission to prove that the exporting producer does not satisfy the MET criteria.
Komisija ni dolžna dokazati, da proizvajalec izvoznik ne izpolnjuje meril za TGO.