natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In response to the claim following the final disclosure that the same criteria should be applied in the selection of the samples of Union producers and exporting producers, for the reasons outlined in recital 23, it is considered that these samples may be made on the basis of different criteria.
V odgovor na trditev po dokončnem razkritju, da bi bilo treba pri izbiri vzorcev proizvajalcev Unije in proizvajalcev izvoznikov uporabljati enaka merila, se iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 23, šteje, da se ti vzorci lahko izberejo na podlagi različnih meril.
With regard to the fact that, as mentioned in recital 23, no comments were received in relation to the representativity of the sample, these parties claimed that, at the time of selecting the samples, the Chinese parties were not informed that different selection criteria were being used for the selection of the samples and so could not comment on this fact.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da glede reprezentativnosti vzorca, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 23, niso bile prejete nobene pripombe, so te strani trdile, da kitajske strani v času izbire vzorcev niso bile obveščene, da se za izbiro vzorcev uporabljajo različna izbirna merila, in da zato v zvezi s tem niso mogle predložiti pripomb.
Concerning the fact that the Chinese parties were not informed of the different criteria used in selecting the samples, it is standard practice, in line with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to consult parties on the composition of proposed samples for their own category, e.g. exporting producers will only be consulted on the proposed sample of exporting producers.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da kitajske strani niso bile obveščene o uporabi različnih meril pri izbiri vzorcev, je v skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe standardna praksa, da se o sestavi predlaganih vzorcev s stranmi posvetuje za njihovo kategorijo, npr. s proizvajalci izvozniki se posvetuje le o predlaganem vzorcu proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
In these circumstances, these parties’ claim regarding the inability to comment on the different selection criteria for the different samples at the time of selection of the samples is disregarded.
V teh okoliščinah se trditev teh strani o nezmožnosti predložitve pripomb glede različnih izbirnih meril za različne vzorce v času izbire vzorcev ne upošteva.
Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed that by taking the different segments into account for the selection of the sample, the Commission breached Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation that lays down that the analysis should be made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types of companies.
Ena zainteresirana stran je po dokončnem razkritju trdila, da je Komisija s tem, ko je pri izbiri vzorca upoštevala različne segmente, kršila člen 4(1) osnovne uredbe, ki določa, da je treba analizo izvesti v povezavi z industrijo Unije kot celoto in ne v povezavi z nekaterimi skupinami ali vrstami družb.
The claim that the division of the sample in three segments is in breach of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation cannot be upheld.
Trditev, da razdelitev vzorca v tri segmente krši člen 4(1) osnovne uredbe, ni utemeljena.
As can be derived from recital 23, the sample selected represented the whole Union industry and not only a specific group of companies, as alleged by the party concerned.
Kot izhaja iz uvodne izjave 23, je izbrani vzorec predstavljal celotno industrijo Unije in ne le posebne skupine družb, kot je trdila zadevna stran.
Furthermore, Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation specifically allows for the selection of a sample in order to determine injury.
Poleg tega člen 17(1) osnovne uredbe izrecno dopušča izbiro vzorca za določitev škode.
This claim was therefore unfounded and rejected.
Ta trditev je bila zato neutemeljena in kot taka zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, the same interested party challenged the fact that the geographical spread had been taken into account for the selection of the sample, arguing that the Union is a single market and that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation can only allow for a sample to be selected based on the largest representative volume.
Ista zainteresirana stran je po dokončnem razkritju izpodbijala dejstvo, da je bila pri izbiri vzorca upoštevana geografska porazdelitev, pri čemer je trdila, da je Unija enoten trg in da člen 17(1) osnovne uredbe dopušča izbiro vzorca le na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega.
As for the claim on the use of the criterion of geographical spread, it is observed that this is a fragmented industry and in order to assess representativeness of the selected companies, the producers’ geographical spread amongst Member States is used to reflect the different situations that can be encountered in the Union.
Kar zadeva trditev o uporabi merila geografske porazdelitve, je treba opozoriti, da gre za razdrobljeno industrijo in da se za oceno reprezentativnosti izbranih družb uporablja geografska porazdelitev proizvajalcev med državami članicami, da bi se odražale različne razmere, ki se lahko pojavijo v Uniji.
The sample covers Member States where approximately 90 % of the Union production is manufactured; after the withdrawal of the Polish company, this level remained high at approximately 80 %.
Vzorec zajema države članice, ki predstavljajo približno 90 % proizvodnje Unije; po umiku poljske družbe je ta stopnja ostala visoka pri približno 80 %.
Thus, the methodology applied by the Commission ensured that the sample was representative of the Union production as a whole and complied with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.
Tako je metodologija, ki jo je uporabila Komisija, zagotovila, da je bil vzorec reprezentativen za proizvodnjo Unije kot celoto in je bil v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe.
Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed that only small and medium-sized companies were selected in the sample of Union producers which allegedly had higher costs and prices than the large Chinese companies.
Ena zainteresirana stran je po dokončnem razkritju trdila, da so bile v vzorec proizvajalcev Unije vključene le srednje in male družbe, ki so domnevno imele višje stroške in cene kot velike kitajske družbe.
This argument was not supported by any evidence.
Ta argument ni bil podprt z dokazi.
It is noted that the sample included companies from all segments.
Opozoriti je treba, da je vzorec vključeval družbe iz vseh segmentov.
Furthermore, other factors beyond the size of the company may have an impact on costs, such as raw material costs, depreciation or capacity utilisation.
Poleg tega lahko na stroške poleg velikosti družbe vplivajo tudi drugi dejavniki, kot so stroški surovin, amortizacija ali izkoriščenost zmogljivosti.
Rights of parties
Pravice strani
Confidentiality of the name of the complainants and companies supporting the complaint
Zaupnost imen pritožnikov in družb, ki podpirajo pritožbo
One interested party claimed that the lack of information regarding the identity of the complainant did not allow interested parties to exercise their rights of defence fully.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani je trdila, da zaradi pomanjkanja informacij o identiteti pritožnika zainteresirane strani ne morejo v celoti uveljavljati svojih pravic do obrambe.
It was also argued that since some producers had not requested to have their name withheld, the request for anonymity was not justified.
Trdila je tudi, da zahteva po anonimnosti ni upravičena, saj nekateri proizvajalci niso zahtevali nerazkrivanja njihovega imena.
One party reiterated its claim that there had not been grounds to allow for confidentiality as concerned the names of most of the complaining producers as well as supporters of the complaint.
Ena stran je ponovila svojo trditev, da ni bilo razlogov za odobritev zaupnosti v zvezi z imeni proizvajalcev pritožnikov in podpornikov pritožbe.
In particular it was claimed that no evidence in support of the confidentiality requests had been included in the file open for inspection by interested parties.
Zlasti je trdila, da v dokumentacijo, ki je bila na voljo za preglede zainteresiranih strani, niso bili vključeni dokazi, ki bi podpirali zahteve za zaupnost.
It was further claimed that not knowing the identity of the sampled companies meant that other interested parties were unable to comment on the correctness of the assessment of the micro indicators.
Trdila je tudi, da je nepoznavanje identitete vzorčenih družb pomenilo, da druge zainteresirane strani niso mogle predložiti pripomb glede pravilnosti ocene mikrokazalnikov.
In response to the final disclosure, the same party questioned whether all related companies of the sampled producers had submitted a questionnaire response.
Ista stran je v odgovor na dokončno razkritje podvomila, ali so vse povezane družbe vzorčenih proizvajalcev predložile izpolnjen vprašalnik.
It is recalled that Article 19 of the basic Regulation allows for the protection of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information.
Opozoriti je treba, da člen 19 osnovne uredbe omogoča zaščito zaupnih informacij v okoliščinah, v katerih bi razkritje dalo znatno konkurenčno prednost konkurentu ali bi močno škodovalo osebi, ki je te informacije predložila, ali pa osebi, od katere je te informacije prejela.
A vast majority of the complainants wanted their identity to remain confidential and provided sufficient evidence showing that there indeed was a significant possibility of retaliation, inter alia, in the form of lost sales for these producers should their names be disclosed.
Velika večina pritožnikov je želela, da njihova identiteta ostane zaupna, in predložila ustrezne dokaze, da bi v primeru razkritja imen teh proizvajalcev res obstajala znatna možnost povračilnih ukrepov, med drugim v obliki izgube njihove prodaje.
The request of these companies was consequently accepted by the Commission services.
Službe Komisije so zato zahtevo teh družb sprejele.
Regarding the claim that some producers had not requested the confidential treatment of their name, it should be noted that this fact does not prejudge the right of other companies to ask for this treatment when sufficient reasons are shown.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da nekateri proizvajalci niso zahtevali zaupne obravnave njihovega imena, je treba opozoriti, da to dejstvo ne vpliva na pravico drugih družb, da zahtevajo to obravnavo, če navedejo zadostne razloge.
The assessment for such requests was done on a case-by-case basis and therefore the claim is rejected.
Ocena takšnih zahtev je bila izvedena za vsak primer posebej, zato se trditev zavrne.
As to whether all related companies of the sampled Union producers had submitted a questionnaire reply, it should be noted that as a matter of principle the lack of response from a related Union producer as such would not necessarily prevent the Commission from reaching reliable conclusions on injury provided that the questionnaire responses that are submitted can be verified.
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali so vse povezane družbe vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije predložile izpolnjen vprašalnik, je treba opozoriti, da dejstvo, da ga nekatere povezane strani niso predložile, Komisiji načeloma ne preprečuje, da pride do zanesljivih sklepov o škodi, če je predložene vprašalnike mogoče preveriti.
This would be the case in particular where the related companies are separate legal entities with separate accounting.
To velja zlasti za primere, kadar so povezane družbe ločene pravne osebe z ločenim računovodstvom.
Scope of investigation.
Obseg preiskave.
Inclusion of imports from Turkey
Vključitev uvoza iz Turčije
One party representing the interests of exporting producers claimed that imports of the product concerned from Turkey should have been included in the scope of this investigation.
Ena stran, ki zastopa interese proizvajalcev izvoznikov, je trdila, da bi bilo treba v obseg te preiskave vključiti uvoz zadevnega izdelka iz Turčije.
Concerning the non-inclusion in the complaint of imports originating in Turkey, it should be noted that at initiation stage, there was no evidence of dumping, injury and causal link from this country to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding on such imports.
Kar zadeva nevključitev uvoza s poreklom iz Turčije v pritožbo, je treba opozoriti, da v začetni fazi v zvezi s to državo ni bilo dokazov o dampingu, škodi in vzročni zvezi, ki bi upravičili začetek protidampinškega postopka za ta uvoz.
The claim that Turkey should have been included in the scope of the investigation is therefore rejected.
Zato je trditev, da bi bilo treba Turčijo vključiti v obseg preiskave, zavrnjena.
Following the imposition of the provisional measures, one interested party indicated that there had been changes in the CN codes covering the product concerned contained in the Regulation imposing provisional measures as compared to those of the notice of initiation and enquired concerning the reasons for these differences and whether they entailed a change in product scope.
Ena zainteresirana stran je po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov navedla, da je prišlo do sprememb oznak KN, ki zajemajo zadevni izdelek, iz uredbe o uvedbi začasnih ukrepov v primerjavi z oznakami iz obvestila o začetku, ter vprašala po vzrokih za te razlike in ali vsebujejo spremembo obsega izdelka.
In this context it is underlined that the differences between the CN codes indicated in the Regulation imposing provisional measures and those mentioned in the notice of initiation are not linked to a change of the product definition or the scope of the investigation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da razlike med oznakami KN iz uredbe o uvedbi začasnih ukrepov in oznakami KN, navedenimi v obvestilu o začetku, niso povezane s spremembo opredelitve izdelka ali obsega preiskave.
The amendments do not change the types of tiles covered but relate simply to the need to take account of the general changes to the Combined Nomenclature, as provided for by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010, which became applicable on 1 January 2011 [5].
Spremembe ne vplivajo na vrste obravnavanih ploščic, temveč se nanašajo le na potrebo po upoštevanju splošnih sprememb kombinirane nomenklature, ki so bile uvedene z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 861/2010, ki se je začela uporabljati 1. januarja 2011 [5].
An interested party asked that certain ceramic mosaics be excluded from the product scope.
Zainteresirana stran je zahtevala izključitev nekaterih keramičnih mozaikov iz obsega izdelkov.
The party alleged that, should measures be imposed, this category of product concerned would lose competitiveness against other products with which it is substitutable and that, in any event, dumping is not taking place in this particular segment.
Stran je trdila, da bi v primeru ukrepov ta kategorija zadevnega izdelka izgubila konkurenčnost glede na druge izdelke, s katerimi je zamenljiva, in da v tem segmentu nikakor ne prihaja do dampinga.
Concerning this claim, the investigation revealed that since ceramic mosaics and other types of ceramic tiles have the same basic physical and technical characteristics, a revision of the product scope is not warranted.
V zvezi s to zahtevo je preiskava pokazala, da glede na enake osnovne fizične in tehnične značilnosti keramičnih mozaikov in drugih vrst keramičnih ploščic sprememba opredelitve izdelka ni utemeljena.
As for the absence of dumping in this segment, which was not supported by any evidence, the analysis of dumping and injury has to mirror the situation for the entire product concerned.
V zvezi z domnevno odsotnostjo dampinga v tem segmentu, o kateri niso bili predloženi dokazi, pa mora analiza dampinga in škode odražati položaj za izdelek kot celoto.
In view of the above and in the absence of any further comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, recitals 25 to 32 of the Regulation imposing provisional measures are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega in ker v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom ni bilo nadaljnjih pripomb, se uvodne izjave 25 do 32 uredbe o uvedbi začasnih ukrepov potrdijo.
In the absence of any further comments or findings regarding Market Economy Treatment, the conclusions set out in recitals 33 to 40 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s tržnogospodarsko obravnavo ni bilo nadaljnjih pripomb ali ugotovitev, se sklepne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 33 do 40 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
No comments were received with regards to the decision on granting or denying IT to individual companies.
V zvezi z odločitvijo o odobritvi ali zavrnitvi IO posameznim družbam niso bile prejete nobene pripombe.
However, two importers questioned the validity as a whole of the Commission’s IT analysis, claiming that the Union annually distributes subsidies by way of the Structural Funds scheme.
Vendar sta dva uvoznika podvomila v veljavnost celotne analize IO Komisije, pri čemer sta trdila, da Unija vsako leto razporeja subvencije prek sistema strukturnih skladov.
In this regard, it is noted that Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation sets out the conditions to be met in order to benefit from IT status.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člen 9(5) osnovne uredbe določa pogoje, ki jih je treba izpolniti za upravičenost do statusa IO.
The alleged existence of subsidisation in the Union is irrelevant for the purposes of that examination.
Domnevni obstoj subvencioniranja v Uniji za navedeno preiskavo ni pomemben.
Therefore, this claim is rejected and the conclusions as set out in recitals 41 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are maintained.
Zato se ta trditev zavrne, sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 41 do 44 začasne uredbe pa se ohranijo.
Individual Examination (‘IE’)
Individualna preiskava („IP“)
Claims for IE were submitted by eight cooperating exporting producers pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Zahtevke za IP je v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe predložilo osem sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
It was decided to carry out IE for one exporting producer, Kito Group, as it was not unduly burdensome to do so.
Sklenjeno je bilo, da se IP izvede za enega proizvajalca izvoznika, tj. Kito Group, ker izvedba ni predstavljala prevelike obremenitve.
This group represented by far the largest export volume of the eight producers claiming IE.
Ta skupina je predstavljala daleč največji obseg izvoza med osmimi proizvajalci, ki so zahtevali IP.
This group claimed IT.
Ta skupina je zahtevala IO.
After examination of this claim, it was initially proposed to grant IT to the Kito Group as no reasons were found as to why this group should not have IT.
Po preučitvi tega zahtevka je bilo prvotno sklenjeno, da se skupini Kito Group odobri IO, ker niso bilo ugotovljeni razlogi, zakaj tej družbi ne bi smela biti odobrena IO.
Following final disclosure, the complainant argued that Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation did not appear to allow for a limited number of requests for IE to be made in situations where numerous requests had been received.
Pritožnik je po dokončnem razkritju trdil, da člen 17(3) osnovne uredbe očitno ne dopušča omejenega števila zahtevkov za IP v primerih, kadar je prejeto veliko število zahtevkov.
The complainant claimed that this view was supported by numerous previous anti-dumping investigations.
Pritožnik je trdil, da to stališče podpirajo tudi številne predhodne protidampinške preiskave.
In this regard, it is noted that the benchmark in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation for examining requests for IE is whether these examinations would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da za merilo iz člena 17(3) osnovne uredbe, na podlagi katerega se zahtevki za IP preučijo ali ne, velja, ali bi te preučitve predstavljale preveliko obremenitev in bi onemogočile, da se preiskava v primernem času zaključi.
In the investigation at hand and as mentioned in recital 51, to examine one of the eight claims for IE was not unduly burdensome.
Kot je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 51, v tej preiskavi preučitev enega od osmih zahtevkov za IP ni predstavljala prevelike obremenitve.
Concerning previous investigations where claims for IE were addressed, it is noted that the extent of the burdensome nature of such requests and the need for the timely completion of an investigation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
V zvezi s predhodnimi preiskavami, v katerih so bili obravnavani zahtevki za IP, je treba opozoriti, da je treba obseg obremenitve, ki jo predstavljajo takšni zahtevki, in potrebo po pravočasnem zaključku preiskave oceniti za vsak primer posebej.
In light of the above, the complainant’s claims are rejected.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega se trditve pritožnika zavrnejo.
Following final disclosure, information and evidence were received that the Kito Group may not have disclosed all related companies of the group with the result that the findings for the group may be incomplete.
Po dokončnem razkritju so bili prejeti informacije in dokazi, da skupina Kito Group morda ni razkrila vseh povezanih družb skupine, zaradi česar so ugotovitve za skupino morda nepopolne.
The group was given the opportunity to comment on this information and was informed that Article 18 of the basic Regulation may have to be applied.
Skupina je imela priložnost, da predloži pripombe na te informacije in je bila obveščena, da bo morda treba uporabiti člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
In reply, they confirmed that indeed they did not disclose two related companies in their reply to the anti-dumping questionnaire but argued that, as it was a mere oversight without consequence since they were not involved in the production and/or commercialisation of the product concerned, it should have no bearing on the findings.
Skupina Kito Group je v odgovoru potrdila, da v vprašalniku o dampingu ni razkrila dveh povezanih družb, vendar je navedla, da gre zgolj za spregled brez posledic, saj nista bili vključeni v proizvodnjo in/ali trženje zadevnega izdelka, zato to ne bi smelo vplivati na ugotovitve.
However, the fact that the existence of these two companies was not disclosed did not allow a proper assessment and verification of the group’s activities in relation to the product concerned.
Vendar dejstvo, da ti družbi nista bili razkriti, ni omogočilo pravilne ocene in preveritve dejavnosti skupine v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom.
In these circumstances, it is concluded that the group did not provide the necessary information within the appropriate time limits and consequently the findings for the company are made on the basis of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Tako se sklene, da skupina ni predložila potrebnih informacij v ustreznih rokih, zato ugotovitve o družbi v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe temeljijo na razpoložljivih dejstvih.
Two importers submitted comments against the choice of the United States of America (‘USA’) as analogue country, claiming that the USA is inappropriate as analogue country due to its insignificant own production, and its lack of competitiveness in the world market.
Dva uvoznika sta predložila pripombe zoper izbiro Združenih držav Amerike („ZDA“) kot primerljive države, pri čemer sta trdila, da ZDA niso ustrezne kot primerljiva država zaradi njihove zanemarljive lastne proizvodnje in nekonkurenčnosti na svetovnem trgu.
They further claimed that the USA was selected in an unreasonable manner, claiming that the lack of alternative analogue countries was caused by undue pressure by the Union producers’ association on producers from other possible analogue countries in order to discourage their possible cooperation.
Trdila sta tudi, da so bile ZDA izbrane na nesprejemljiv način in da je bilo pomanjkanje drugih primerljivih držav posledica neupravičenega pritiska združenja proizvajalcev Unije na proizvajalce iz drugih morebitnih primerljivih držav, da bi jih odvrnili od morebitnega sodelovanja.