natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Two importers argued that information from a number of possible cooperating countries was disregarded by the Commission and that publicly available data from national or transnational associations of producers in third countries was not considered.
Dva uvoznika sta trdila, da Komisija ni upoštevala informacij morebitnih sodelujočih držav ter da javno dostopni podatki nacionalnih ali nadnacionalnih združenj proizvajalcev v tretjih državah niso bili upoštevani.
To take the last argument first, it is recalled that company-specific information is required in order to carry out the investigation of the level of dumping.
Kar zadeva zadnji argument, je treba opozoriti, da so za izvedbo preiskave stopnje dampinga potrebne informacije, ki so specifične za družbe.
Therefore this argument was rejected.
Zato je bil ta argument zavrnjen.
Regarding the allegations of undue pressure by the Union producers’ association in order to discourage cooperation, it is noted that no evidence was provided.
V zvezi s trditvami o neupravičenem pritisku združenja proizvajalcev Unije, namen katerega naj bi bilo odvračanje od sodelovanja, je treba opozoriti, da niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi.
Therefore these comments had to be disregarded.
Zato teh pripomb ni bilo mogoče upoštevati.
These importers further claimed that the annual production volume of ceramic tiles in the USA was approximately 60 million m2 per year, and not 600 million m2 as stated in recital 51 of the provisional Regulation.
Ta uvoznika sta trdila tudi, da je letni obseg proizvodnje keramičnih ploščic v ZDA znašal približno 60 milijonov m2 na leto in ne 600 milijonov m2, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 51 začasne uredbe.
This was verified and found to be correct.
To je bilo preverjeno, pri čemer je bilo ugotovljeno, da je ta trditev pravilna.
With regard to the suitability of the USA as analogue country in light of the significantly lower level of production, it should be emphasised that the US market is highly competitive – there are several local production companies and import quantities are significant.
Kar zadeva ustreznost ZDA kot primerljive države glede na znatno nižjo stopnjo proizvodnje, je treba poudariti, da je trg ZDA zelo konkurenčen, saj obstaja več lokalnih proizvodnih družb, količine uvoza pa so znatne.
Furthermore, as mentioned in recital 52 of the provisional Regulation, there is no evidence of any non-tariff barriers that would be a substantial hindrance to competition on the market.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 52 začasne uredbe, ni nobenih dokazov o netarifnih ovirah, ki bi znatno ovirale konkurenco na trgu.
In these circumstances, despite the lower production volume, the overall conclusion that the USA is an appropriate analogue country remains unchanged.
V teh okoliščinah splošna sklepna ugotovitev, da so ZDA ustrezna primerljiva država, kljub nižjemu obsegu proizvodnje ostaja nespremenjena.
Two importers argued that unit sales prices of US produced tiles in the US domestic market were much higher than in the Union market and, when compared to export prices, give rise to the existence of dumping practices.
Dva uvoznika sta trdila, da so bile prodajne cene na enoto ploščic, proizvedenih v ZDA, na domačem trgu ZDA veliko višje kot na trgu Unije in da v primerjavi z izvoznimi cenami kažejo na obstoj dampinga.
This argument was found to be irrelevant for the purpose of this proceeding, since any such allegations, assuming that there would be prima facie evidence for them, could only be thoroughly examined in a separate anti-dumping proceeding relating to the USA.
Za ta argument je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni pomemben za namen tega postopka, ker bi bilo takšne trditve ob predvidevanju, da bi za njih obstajali dokazi prima facie, mogoče temeljito preiskati le z ločenim protidampinškim postopkom v zvezi z ZDA.
It was therefore disregarded.
Zato ta argument ni bil upoštevan.
These importers further claimed that the US cooperating producer was owned by, or affiliated with, Union producers, and thus the investigation was flawed as data obtained were not independent.
Ta uvoznika sta trdila tudi, da je sodelujoči proizvajalec iz ZDA v lasti proizvajalcev Unije ali je z njimi povezan in da je zato preiskava napačna, saj pridobljeni podatki niso neodvisni.
It is recalled that the data submitted by the US cooperating producer was verified on spot.
Opozoriti je treba, da so bili podatki, ki jih je predložil sodelujoči proizvajalec iz ZDA, preverjeni na kraju samem.
Therefore this claim was found to be irrelevant and was disregarded.
Za to trditev je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni pomembna, in zato ni bila upoštevana.
These importers further claimed that US export volumes were limited.
Ta uvoznika sta trdila tudi, da je bil obseg izvoza ZDA omejen.
This argument was considered to be irrelevant to the selection of the analogue country, since the analogue country data are used to determine normal value and not export prices.
Ta argument se je štel kot nepomemben za izbiro primerljive države, ker se podatki primerljive države uporabljajo za določitev normalne vrednosti in ne izvoznih cen.
It was therefore rejected.
Zato je bil zavrnjen.
Finally these same importers claimed that maintaining confidentiality over the identity, volume, value and quality of the output of the cooperating analogue producer was not justified.
Nazadnje sta ista uvoznika trdila, da ohranjanje zaupnosti identitete sodelujočega primerljivega proizvajalca ter obsega, vrednosti in kakovosti njegove proizvodnje ni bilo upravičeno.
It is recalled that the cooperating analogue producer had requested confidentiality for fear of commercial retaliation, and this request was found to be justified.
Opozoriti je treba, da je sodelujoči primerljivi proizvajalec zahteval zaupnost zaradi bojazni pred trgovinskimi povračilnimi ukrepi, pri čemer je bilo za to zahtevo ugotovljeno, da je upravičena.
Moreover, it cannot be excluded that furnishing any of the data which the importers request, even in ranges, could lead to the identification of the analogue country producer.
Poleg tega ni mogoče izključiti, da bi predložitev podatkov, ki jih uvozniki zahtevajo, celo v obliki razponov, lahko privedla do identifikacije proizvajalca iz primerljive države.
Therefore the importers’ claim was disregarded.
Zato trditev uvoznikov ni bila upoštevana.
Following final disclosure, the abovementioned two importers repeated a number of their abovementioned claims without, however, providing any further substantiated evidence.
Navedena uvoznika sta po dokončnem razkritju ponovila več svojih že navedenih trditev, vendar nista zagotovila nobenih nadaljnjih utemeljenih dokazov.
In these circumstances, their claims remain rejected.
Zato njune trditve ostajajo zavrnjene.
Furthermore, these two importers also claimed that, as the cooperating US producer is allegedly controlled by a Union producer, the choice of this US company as a suitable analogue country producer is flawed.
Poleg tega sta ta uvoznika trdila tudi, da je sodelujoči ameriški proizvajalec domnevno pod nadzorom proizvajalca Unije, zato je izbira te ameriške družbe kot ustreznega proizvajalca iz primerljive države napačna.
In particular, they claimed that the US company is not economically independent and so cannot serve as a benchmark for dumping.
Zlasti sta trdila, da ameriška družba ni gospodarsko neodvisna in zato ne more predstavljati merila za damping.
The importers cite the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation as justification for this claim.
Uvoznika utemeljujeta to trditev s sklicevanjem na tretji in četrti odstavek člena 2(1) osnovne uredbe.
In reply to this claim, it must first of all be stated that, as mentioned in recital 23 of the provisional Regulation and in recital 69 below, the cooperating US producer has requested anonymity and this request has been granted.
V odgovor na to trditev je treba najprej navesti, da je sodelujoči ameriški proizvajalec, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 23 začasne uredbe in uvodni izjavi 69, zahteval anonimnost in da je bila ta zahteva odobrena.
In these circumstances, whether a relationship exists between the US company and a Union producer cannot be confirmed or denied.
V teh okoliščinah obstoja povezave med ameriško družbo in proizvajalcem Unije ni mogoče ne potrditi ne zanikati.
However, it is noted that the abovementioned provisions of the basic Regulation concern how to treat the sales prices of a company under investigation when it sells to a related party.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da se navedene določbe osnovne uredbe nanašajo na to, kako je treba obravnavati prodajne cene preiskovane družbe, kadar prodaja povezani strani.
These provisions do not concern the matter of a possible relationship between an analogue country producer and a Union producer.
Te določbe se ne nanašajo na morebitno povezavo med proizvajalcem iz primerljive države in proizvajalcem Unije.
In these circumstances, the claim is rejected.
V teh okoliščinah je trditev zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, an importers’ association made numerous claims.
Eno združenje uvoznikov je po dokončnem razkritju podalo številne trditve.
Firstly, they claimed that the allegedly low volume of sales of US producers on their domestic market compared to Chinese exports to the Union rendered the USA an unsuitable analogue country market.
Najprej je trdilo, da ZDA zaradi domnevno majhnega obsega prodaje ameriških proizvajalcev na svojem domačem trgu v primerjavi s kitajskim izvozom v Unijo ne predstavljajo ustreznega trga primerljive države.
In this regard, in examining possible analogue countries, the level of competition in those countries is, inter alia, one of the elements examined.
V zvezi s tem je pri preučitvi morebitnih primerljivih držav eden od preučevanih elementov med drugim tudi stopnja konkurence.
To have similar levels of domestic sales of the domestic industry and imports from the country under investigation is not a precondition for deeming a country to be a suitable analogue country.
Podobne stopnje domače prodaje domače industrije in uvoza iz preiskovane države niso predpogoj za obravnavanje države kot ustrezne primerljive države.
As regards these claims, for this investigation, and as stated in recital 59, the US market was found to be sufficiently competitive to be a suitable choice.
Kar zadeva te trditve, je bilo v okviru te preiskave ugotovljeno, da je ameriški trg, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 59, dovolj konkurenčen ter je tako ustrezna izbira.
The importers’ association also claimed that it did not consider that the fact that imports into the US market are significant was relevant to choosing the USA as analogue country.
Združenje uvoznikov je trdilo tudi, da dejstvo, da je uvoz na ameriški trg znaten, po njegovem mnenju ni pomembno za izbiro ZDA kot primerljive države.
As regards this claim, it should be noted that the level of imports is indeed one of the important factors examined when selecting a suitable analogue country.
Kar zadeva to trditev, je treba opozoriti, da je stopnja uvoza dejansko eden od pomembnih dejavnikov, ki se preučujejo pri izbiri ustrezne primerljive države.
The combination of domestic production and high volumes of imports contribute to a competitive market as mentioned in recital 59.
Kombinacija domače proizvodnje in velikega obsega uvoza prispeva h konkurenčnemu trgu, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 59.
The importers’ association also asked what evidence had been provided by the cooperating analogue country producer to prove the risk of commercial retaliation as mentioned in recital 64.
Združenje uvoznikov je hotelo vedeti tudi, katere dokaze je predložil sodelujoči proizvajalec iz primerljive države, da bi dokazal tveganje v zvezi s trgovinskimi povračilnimi ukrepi, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 64.
In this regard, the US company pointed out that there are numerous Chinese exporting producers of ceramic tiles on the US market with which the US company competes for the same customers.
V zvezi s tem je ameriška družba poudarila, da je na ameriškem trgu veliko kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, s katerimi ameriška družba konkurira za iste stranke.
In these circumstances, the US company stated that it feared commercial retaliation if its identity were to be revealed.
V teh okoliščinah je ameriška družba izjavila, da se boji trgovinskih povračilnih ukrepov, če bi bila njena identiteta razkrita.
Regarding the evidence provided to prove the risk of retaliation, it should be noted that the possible risk arising from the fact that the US company as well as the Chinese exporting producers active on the US market are competing for the same customers was found to be plausible.
Kar zadeva predložene dokaze o tveganju v zvezi s povračilnimi ukrepi, je treba opozoriti, da je bilo za morebitno tveganje, ki izhaja iz dejstva, da ameriška družba in kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so dejavni na ameriškem trgu, konkurirajo za iste stranke, ugotovljeno, da je verjetno.
In these circumstances, the company’s request for anonymity was accepted.
V teh okoliščinah je bila zahteva družbe po anonimnosti sprejeta.
The association also claimed that, as the average domestic sales price in the USA of the domestically produced ceramic tiles was allegedly several times higher than the price of Union imports from China, the US product is not a ‘like product’ to the imported product from China.
Združenje je trdilo tudi, da ameriški izdelek ni „podobni izdelek“ uvoženemu izdelku iz Kitajske, saj je povprečna domača prodajna cena doma proizvedenih keramičnih ploščic v ZDA domnevno nekajkrat višja od cene uvoza Unije iz Kitajske.
In this regard, the fact that these two prices differ is not a reason to consider that the US product is not alike to the product concerned.
V zvezi s tem dejstvo, da se ti ceni razlikujeta, ni razlog, da se ameriški izdelek ne bi obravnaval kot podoben zadevnemu izdelku.
As stated in recital 32 of the provisional Regulation, it was found that the product concerned and, inter alia, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 32 začasne uredbe, je bilo ugotovljeno, da imata zadevni izdelek in med drugim izdelek, ki se proizvaja in prodaja na domačem trgu ZDA, enake osnovne fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti ter osnovno uporabo.
In these circumstances they are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato veljata za podobna v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The association’s claim is therefore rejected.
Zato se trditev združenja zavrne.
Finally, the association asked why the Union was not considered as an appropriate analogue country in the absence of cooperation from third countries other than the USA.
Nazadnje je združenje hotelo vedeti, zakaj se ob nesodelovanju tretjih držav, razen ZDA, Unija ni štela kot ustrezna primerljiva država.
In this regard, given that the USA has been found to be a suitable analogue country, as mentioned in recital 59, the need to examine possible other suitable markets did not arise.
V zvezi s tem ni bilo potrebe po preučitvi morebitnih drugih ustreznih trgov, saj je bilo za ZDA, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 59, ugotovljeno, da je ustrezna primerljiva država.
Therefore, the association’s claim is rejected.
Zato je trditev združenja zavrnjena.
In the absence of further comments, it is confirmed that the choice of the USA as analogue country was appropriate and reasonable in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, and recitals 45 to 54 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nadaljnjih pripomb, je potrjeno, da je bila izbira ZDA kot primerljive države ustrezna in razumna v skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe, pri čemer se uvodne izjave 45 do 54 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Two importers argued that without information regarding the US producer’s output in terms of volume, interested parties could not verify whether due to economies of scale, there could be significant difference in the production costs of the US producer compared to the sampled Chinese producers which produced annually more than 10 million m2 of ceramic tiles.
Dva uvoznika sta trdila, da brez informacij o obsegu proizvodnje proizvajalca iz ZDA zainteresirane strani niso mogle preveriti, ali bi zaradi ekonomije obsega lahko obstajala znatna razlika med proizvodnimi stroški proizvajalca iz ZDA v primerjavi z vzorčenimi kitajskimi proizvajalci, ki so letno proizvedli več kot 10 milijonov m2 keramičnih ploščic.
These importers further claimed that the production volumes of the analogue producer and of the Chinese producers were not comparable, given the lower production volume of the analogue producer or in the analogue country.
Ta uvoznika sta trdila tudi, da obsega proizvodnje primerljivega proizvajalca in kitajskih proizvajalcev glede na manjši obseg proizvodnje primerljivega proizvajalca ali v primerljivi državi nista primerljiva.
It is recalled that the production volume of the cooperating analogue producer is confidential and cannot therefore be disclosed.
Opozoriti je treba, da je obseg proizvodnje sodelujočega primerljivega proizvajalca zaupen in ga ni mogoče razkriti.
It is also recalled that the Chinese industry is highly fragmented and mostly composed of SMEs.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je kitajska industrija zelo razdrobljena in da je večinoma sestavljena iz MSP.
Therefore, these arguments were found to be unsubstantiated.
Zato je bilo za te argumente ugotovljeno, da so neutemeljeni.
These importers pointed out that since the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation required that normal value be based on the prices of ‘other sellers or producers’, establishing normal value on the basis of one single company’s data was flawed.
Ta uvoznika sta izpostavila, da je določitev normalne vrednosti na podlagi podatkov ene same družbe napačna, saj drugi pododstavek člena 2(1) osnovne uredbe določa, da mora normalna vrednost temeljiti na cenah „drugih prodajalcev ali proizvajalcev“.
In this regard, it is recalled that this proceeding concerns imports from a non-market economy country where the normal value needs to be established in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da ta postopek zadeva uvoz iz države brez tržnega gospodarstva, pri katerem je treba normalno vrednost določiti v skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe.
Thus, this claim was rejected.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, an importers’ association stated that it considered that normal value in an analogue country could not be based on data provided by one company.
Eno združenje uvoznikov je po dokončnem razkritju izjavilo, da po njegovem mnenju normalna vrednost v primerljivi državi ne more temeljiti na podatkih, ki jih je zagotovila ena družba.
However, for the reasons set out in recital 75, this claim is rejected.
Vendar se ta trditev iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 75, zavrne.
Finally, these importers claimed that the analogue producer’s product lacked representativeness since it exclusively served the high-priced segment.
Nazadnje sta ta uvoznika trdila, da izdelek primerljivega proizvajalca ni dovolj reprezentativen, ker naj bi po njunih domnevah služil izključno visokocenovnemu segmentu.
Because the request for confidentiality of the analogue producer was granted, this allegation is neither confirmed nor denied.
Ker je bila zahteva primerljivega proizvajalca po zaupnosti odobrena, se ta trditev niti ne potrdi niti zavrne.
In any case, even if the allegation was correct, as explained in recital 61 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments were made where warranted to the constructed normal value in order to take into account all types of tiles, including resale branding.
Tudi če bi bila trditev pravilna, so bile, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 61 začasne uredbe, za upoštevanje vseh vrst ploščic, vključno s preprodajo blagovne znamke, vsekakor izvedene prilagoditve konstruirane normalne vrednosti, kadar je bilo to upravičeno.
Therefore this claim was found not to be warranted and was therefore rejected.
Za to trditev je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni upravičena, zato je bila zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, one exporting producer claimed that sales of certain types of ceramic tiles to the Union in the IP had been misclassified by the Commission services and that the company’s dumping margin should be corrected accordingly.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je po dokončnem razkritju trdil, da so službe Komisije napačno razvrstile prodajo nekaterih vrst keramičnih ploščic v Uniji v OP in da bi bilo treba stopnjo dampinga za družbo ustrezno popraviti.
In this regard, it was determined during the verification visit at the company’s premises that the company had wrongly classified certain ceramic tiles and the company was informed thereof.
V zvezi s tem je bilo med preveritvenim obiskom prostorov družbe ugotovljeno, da je družba napačno razvrstila nekatere keramične ploščice in da je bila družba o tem obveščena.
These were then correctly reclassified for the purposes of making an accurate dumping calculation.
Te keramične ploščice so bile nato pravilno ponovno razvrščene za namene natančnega izračuna dampinga.
In these circumstances, the company’s claim is rejected.
Zato se trditev družbe zavrne.
Following final disclosure, the same exporting producer claimed that certain export sales transactions to the Union in the IP had been disregarded in calculating the company’s dumping margin.
Isti proizvajalec izvoznik je po dokončnem razkritju trdil, da nekatere izvozne prodajne transakcije v Uniji v OP niso bile upoštevane pri izračunu stopnje dampinga za družbo.
In the absence of any comments with regard to export prices, recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi z izvoznimi cenami ni bilo pripomb, se uvodna izjava 59 začasne uredbe potrdi.
Comments were made concerning the comparison between the normal value and the export price.
Predložene so bile pripombe v zvezi s primerjavo med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno.
One exporting producer claimed that for the calculation of its CIF value, the fact that export sales were made through unrelated traders should be taken into account.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je treba za izračun vrednosti CIF upoštevati dejstvo, da je bil izvoz izveden prek nepovezanih trgovcev.
This claim was found to be warranted and subsequently the CIF values for this exporter were recalculated.
Za to trditev je bilo ugotovljeno, da je upravičena, pri čemer so se pozneje ponovno izračunale vrednosti CIF za tega izvoznika.
Following final disclosure, the complainant claimed that this recalculation of export prices should not have been made as the information provided by the unrelated traders was not reliable given that allegedly only some of the traders through which the exporting producer sold had provided information.
Pritožnik je po dokončnem razkritju trdil, da se ta ponovni izračun izvoznih cen ne bi smel izvesti, saj informacije, ki so jih zagotovili nepovezani trgovci, niso bile zanesljive glede na to, da so informacije domnevno zagotovili le nekateri trgovci, prek katerih proizvajalec izvoznik prodaja.
In this regard it was found that all unrelated traders through which the exporting producer sold had provided price information.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da so informacije o ceni zagotovili vsi nepovezani trgovci, prek katerih je proizvajalec izvoznik prodajal.
Another exporting producer claimed that the cost of insurance had not been correctly taken into account when calculating its CIF value.
Drug proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da pri izračunu vrednosti CIF niso bili pravilno upoštevani stroški zavarovanja.
This claim was found to be warranted and the CIF values of this exporter were corrected accordingly.
Za to trditev je bilo ugotovljeno, da je upravičena, pri čemer so bile vrednosti CIF za tega izvoznika ustrezno popravljene.
One group of exporting companies claimed that the cost of insurance included in their CIF values was wrongly calculated.
Ena skupina izvoznih družb je trdila, da so bili stroški zavarovanja, vključeni v njene vrednosti CIF, napačno izračunani.