natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 789/2011
Oddelek 2 poglavja III Uredbe (ES) št. 1187/2009 in Uredbe (EU) št. 789/2011
Identification of group in accordance with Additional Notes in Chapter 4 of the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States
Skupina v skladu z dodatnimi opombami iz poglavja 4 usklajenega tarifnega programa Združenih držav Amerike
Quantity available for 2012
Razpoložljiva količina za leto 2012
Presentation of information required pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009
Predložitev podatkov v skladu s členom 22 uredbe (ES) št. 1187/2009
Identification of group and quota referred to in column 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 789/2011:
Skupine in kvota iz stolpca 3 iz Priloge I k Uredbi (EU) št. 789/2011:
Name of group indicated in column 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 789/2011:…
Ime skupine iz stolpca 2 Priloge I k Uredbi (EU) št. 789/2011: …
Name/address of applicant
Ime/Naslov vlagatelja
Harmonised Tariff
Usklajeni tarifni
Schedule of the USA code
program oznak Združenih držav Amerike
Name/address of designated importer
Ime/Naslov imenovanega uvoznika
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 790/2011
This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 August 2011.
Ta uredba začne veljati 6. avgusta 2011.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 791/2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih tkanin z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: osnovna uredba), in zlasti člena 9(4) Uredbe,
By Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’) the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Komisija je z Uredbo (EU) št. 138/2011 [2] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začasna uredba) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih tkanin z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske (v nadaljnjem besedilu: LRK).
The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 6 April 2010 by Saint-Gobain Vertex s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozó és Müszakiszövetgyártó, Valmieras stikla šķiedra AS, and Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH (‘the complainants’), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres.
Postopek se je začel na podlagi pritožbe, ki so jo 6. aprila 2010 vložila podjetja Saint-Gobain Vertex s.r.o., Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozó és Müszakiszövetgyártó, „Valmieras stikla šķiedra“ AS in Vitrulan Technical Textiles GmbH (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pritožniki), ki predstavljajo glavni delež, v tem primeru več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje Unije nekaterih tkanin z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken.
As set out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 13 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2009 do 31. marca 2010 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obdobje preiskave ali OP).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Preučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2006 do konca obdobja preiskave (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obravnavano obdobje).
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev za uvedbo začasnih protidampinških ukrepov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začasno razkritje), je več zainteresiranih strani predložilo svoja pisna stališča v zvezi z začasnimi ugotovitvami.
In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, further verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
Poleg preverjanj, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 11 začasne uredbe, so bili opravljeni nadaljnji preveritveni obiski v naslednjih podjetjih:
Exporting producer which had requested individual examination:
proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je zahteval individualno obravnavo:
and its related trader:
in njegov povezani trgovec:
Unrelated importer in the Union:
nepovezani uvoznik v Uniji:
Vimaplás – Tecidos Técnicos Lda., Portugal.
Vimaplás – Tecidos Técnicos Lda., Portugalska
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’).
Vse strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih tkanin z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken s poreklom iz LRK in dokončno pobiranje zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: dokončno razkritje).
All parties were granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this final disclosure.
Vsem stranem je bil določen tudi rok, v katerem so po tem končnem razkritju lahko predložile svoja stališča.
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
Ustne in pisne pripombe, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane strani, so bile preučene in po potrebi ustrezno upoštevane.
The product concerned is, as set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’) and currently falling within CN codes ex70194000, ex70195100, ex70195900, ex70199091 and ex70199099.
Zadevni izdelek so, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 14 začasne uredbe, tkanine z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken z velikostjo celice več kot 1,8 mm po dolžini in širini ter težo več kot 35 g/m2 s poreklom iz LRK (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadevni izdelek), ki so trenutno uvrščene v oznake KN ex70194000, ex70195100, ex70195900, ex70199091 in ex70199099.
After the imposition of provisional measures, a further analysis showed that the product concerned cannot be classified under three of the five CN codes referred to in recital 8.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov so nadaljnje analize pokazale, da zadevnega izdelka ni mogoče uvrstiti v tri od petih oznak KN, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 8.
Therefore CN codes ex70199091, ex70199099 and ex70194000 should be removed from the description of the product concerned.
Zato bi bilo treba oznake KN 70199091, ex70199099 in ex70194000 izključiti iz opisa zadevnega izdelka.
It is also recalled that, as explained in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation, one Chinese exporting producer requested clarification whether fibreglass discs are included in the product definition.
Opozoriti pa je treba tudi, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 16 začasne uredbe, da je en kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik zahteval pojasnilo, ali so diski iz steklenih vlaken vključeni v opredelitev izdelka.
The Union industry was of the opinion that fibreglass discs are a downstream product with different characteristics than those of the product concerned.
Po mnenju industrije Unije so diski iz steklenih vlaken izdelek v nadaljnjem proizvodnem procesu z drugačnimi značilnostmi od zadevnega izdelka.
However, it was decided to collect further information from interested parties before making a definitive conclusion on this issue.
Odločeno je bilo, da se pred dokončno ugotovitvijo o tem vprašanju zberejo nadaljnje informacije od zainteresiranih strani.
Further to the provisional disclosure, evidence was submitted by the Union industry and the Federation of European Producers of Abrasives (‘FEPA’) representing the users of the fibreglass discs showing that there are a number of steps in the production process that have to be undertaken to convert glass fibre open mesh fabric into fibreglass discs.
Po začasnem razkritju so predstavniki industrije Unije in Zveza evropskih proizvajalcev sredstev za brušenje (Federation of European Producers of Abrasives, v nadaljnjem besedilu: FEPA), ki predstavljajo uporabnike diskov iz steklenih vlaken, predložili dokaze, da proizvodni postopek preoblikovanja tkanin z odprto mrežno strukturo iz steklenih vlaken v diske iz steklenih vlaken sestavlja več korakov.
The physical shape of the disc is also different from the product concerned which is normally supplied in rolls (narrow or wide) and it is also normally intended for a different end use (reinforcement of grinding wheels).
Tudi fizična oblika diska se razlikuje od zadevnega izdelka, ki se običajno dostavlja v rolah (ozkih ali širokih) ter je običajno namenjen različnim končnim uporabam (okrepitev brusilnih plošč).
These arguments were shared by the Chinese exporting producer.
Te argumente je posredoval kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik.
It is additionally noted that fibreglass discs were not produced or sold by any of the sampled exporting producers in the PRC or Union producers.
Poleg tega je bilo izpostavljeno, da diskov iz steklenih vlaken ni proizvajal niti prodajal noben proizvajalec izvoznik v LRK ali proizvajalec Unije.
One Union producer of fibreglass discs which came forward after the imposition of provisional measures argued that fibreglass discs should not be excluded from the product scope.
En proizvajalec diskov iz steklenih vlaken v Uniji je po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov trdil, da diskov iz steklenih vlaken ne bi smeli izključiti iz obsega izdelka.
It claimed that fibreglass discs are not a downstream product but that a clear line between the product concerned and a downstream product should be drawn at the stage when open mesh rolls are coated.
Trdil je, da diski iz steklenih vlaken niso izdelki v nadaljnjem proizvodnem procesu, toda da je treba v fazi premazovanja rol z odprto mrežo jasno razločevati med zadevnim izdelkom in izdelkom v nadaljnjem proizvodnem procesu.
According to the company, the coating of open mesh rolls used in the construction sector is different from that of open mesh rolls that are later used for making fibreglass discs.
Po mnenju podjetja se premazovanje rol z odprto mrežo, ki se uporabljajo v gradbenem sektorju, razlikuje od premazovanja rol z odprto mrežo, ki se pozneje uporabljajo za proizvodnjo diskov iz steklenih vlaken.
In the latter case the rolls are coated with phenol resin.
V slednjem primeru se role premažejo s fenolno smolo.
In other words, the chemical characteristics of open mesh rolls intended for making fibreglass discs are allegedly identical to those of the fibreglass discs.
Z drugimi besedami so kemične lastnosti rol z odprto mrežo, ki so namenjene za proizvodnjo diskov iz steklenih vlaken, domnevno identične kemičnim lastnostim diskov iz steklenih vlaken.
According to the company these types of open mesh rolls cannot be used in construction reinforcement, which is the main application of the product concerned.
Po mnenju podjetja teh vrst rol z odprto mrežo ni mogoče uporabljati pri konstrukcijskih okrepitvah, za kar se zadevni izdelek največ uporablja.
Therefore the company argued that if fibreglass discs were to be excluded from the product scope, open mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should also be excluded.
Zato bi bilo treba v primeru, da se diski iz steklenih vlaken izključijo iz obsega izdelka, po mnenju podjetja iz obsega izdelka izključiti tudi role z odprto mrežo, premazane s fenolno smolo.
As explained in recital 13 the company came forward only after the imposition of provisional measures and thus did not provide verifiable data in support of its claims.
Kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 13, se je podjetje javilo šele po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov in tako ni predložilo preverljivih podatkov v podporo svojim trditvam.
As no data was available from the investigation with regard to the different types of coating used, the company’s claim could not be assessed in light of data obtained from the investigation.
Ker v preiskavi ni bilo dostopnih podatkov o različnih načinih premazovanja, ki se uporabljajo, na podlagi podatkov iz preiskave ni bilo mogoče oceniti trditve podjetja.
Moreover, regardless the coating, different types of open mesh rolls share the same basic physical characteristics and therefore open mesh rolls coated with phenol resin should not be excluded.
Nadalje pa imajo različne vrste rol z odprto mrežo ne glede na premazovanje enake osnovne fizikalne značilnosti in zato role z odprto mrežo, premazane s fenolno smolo, ne bi smele biti izvzete.
Based on the data gathered during the investigation and the evidence submitted by the exporting producer mentioned in recital 10, the Union industry and FEPA in their comments to the provisional disclosure, the claim to exclude fibreglass discs from the product scope is hereby accepted.
Zahteva, da se diski iz steklenih vlaken izključijo iz obsega izdelka, se sprejme na podlagi podatkov, zbranih med preiskavo, ter dokazov, ki so jih predložili proizvajalec izvoznik, naveden v uvodni izjavi 10, industrija Unije in FEPA v njihovih pripombah k začasnim ugotovitvam.
It is thus concluded that fibreglass discs as a downstream product do not share the same physical characteristics and have different uses as compared to open mesh fabrics and therefore should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned as defined in the provisional Regulation.
Tako je ugotovljeno, da diski iz steklenih vlaken kot izdelki v nadaljnjem proizvodnem procesu nimajo enakih fizikalnih značilnosti in se drugače uporabljajo kot tkanine z odprto mrežno strukturo ter bi jih bilo zato treba izključiti iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka, kakor je opredeljen v začasni uredbi.
Fibreglass discs are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.
Diski iz steklenih vlaken so tako dokončno izključeni iz postopka.
In the absence of any other comments regarding the like product, recital 17 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb glede podobnega izdelka ni bilo, se potrdi uvodna izjava 17 začasne uredbe.
As set out in recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regulation, it was initially proposed to grant MET to two companies but at a later stage of the proceeding it was decided to reverse this proposal after investigating allegations received concerning the MET status of the companies concerned which were found to be correct.
Kakor je določeno v uvodnih izjavah od 18 do 32 začasne uredbe, je bilo dvema podjetjema najprej predlagana odobritev TGO, pozneje med postopkom, po preiskavi prejetih trditev o statusu TGO zadevnih podjetij, za katere se je izkazalo, da so pravilne, pa je bil ta predlog zavrnjen.
One exporting producer, to which Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied, reiterated the arguments already brought forward when it was informed that the Commission intended to refuse MET.
En proizvajalec izvoznik, za katerega se je uporabljal člen 18 osnovne uredbe, je ponovil trditve, ki jih je predložil, ko je bil obveščen, da Komisija namerava zavrniti TGO.
It argued again that the Articles of Association and the Joint Venture Contract received by the Commission were an old version which never entered into force and had therefore no impact on the findings of the company’s MET assessment.
Znova je trdil, da sta statut in pogodba o skupnih vlaganjih, ki ju je prejela Komisija, stari različici, ki se nista nikoli uveljavili in zato ne moreta vplivati na ugotovitve ocene TGO podjetja.
As set out in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation, these arguments could not remove the doubts on the authenticity of the initial documents and information provided by the exporting producer in its MET Claim form submission.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 28 začasne uredbe, te trditve ne bi mogle ovreči dvomov o verodostojnosti izvirnih dokumentov in informacij, ki jih je v svojem obrazcu zahtevku za TGO predložil proizvajalec izvoznik.
With regard to the argument that the application of the Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation is disproportionate in this case, the Commission applies the provisions of this Article on a case-by-case basis according to the merits of each case.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da je uporaba člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe v tem primeru nesorazmerna, pa Komisija določbe tega člena uporablja na osnovi posamičnega primera in ob upoštevanju dejstev vsakega primera posebej.
In the present proceeding the use of this Article has been considered appropriate as already indicated in recitals 26, 27 and 31 of the provisional Regulation, since the provision of the falsified documents casts doubts on all documents provided by the company.
V tem postopku se je uporaba tega člena štela za primerno, kakor je že navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 26, 27 in 31 začasne uredbe, saj so zaradi ponarejenih dokumentov dvomljivi vsi dokumenti, ki jih je predložilo podjetje.
The second exporting producer to which MET was refused but Individual Treatment (IT) granted instead, disputed the grounds on which the Commission had reversed its decision.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik, ki mu je bila zavrnjena TGO, namesto tega pa odobrena individualna obravnava (IO), je izpodbijal razloge, na podlagi katerih je Komisija spremenila svojo odločitev.
They considered that there was no new compelling evidence that would significantly undermine the original findings to justify the repeal of the initial decision for granting MET.
Po njegovem mnenju ni bilo nobenega novega prepričljivega dokaza, ki bi resno omajal prvotne ugotovitve, ki upravičujejo razveljavitev prvotne odločitve o odobritvi TGO.
They argued that the inaccuracies and incompleteness found in their financial statements and not reported by the auditor had no material impact on the reliability of these accounts.
Trdil je, da nenatančnosti in nepopolnosti, ki so bile najdene v njihovih računovodskih izkazih in revizor o njih ni poročal, niso pomembno vplivale na zanesljivost navedenih izkazov.
As set out in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, these arguments could not remove the doubts as to the accuracy and completeness of the figures presented in the financial statements.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 30 začasne uredbe, navedene trditve ne bi mogle ovreči dvomov o natančnosti in popolnosti podatkov v finančnih poročilih.
They also consider that the outcome of the investigation and their individual duty rate is unfair and disproportionate since the company has cooperated within the course of the proceeding and is subject to the highest duty rate like the non-cooperating companies and the company subject to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Po njegovem mnenju sta bila tudi izid preiskave in njegova individualna stopnja dajatve nepravična in nesorazmerna, saj je podjetje sodelovalo v postopku ter zanj veljajo najvišje stopnje dajatve kot za nesodelujoča podjetja in podjetja, za katera velja člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
In this regard it is noted that the company is subject to a duty which is the result of the usual methodology applied for companies granted IT.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da za podjetje velja dajatev, ki je posledica običajne metodologije, uporabljene za podjetja z odobreno IO.
In the absence of any other comments concerning MET, recitals 18 to 32 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s TGO ni drugih pripomb, se uvodne izjave od 18 do 32 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Individual Examination (IE)
Individualna preiskava (IP)
As set out in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, a non-sampled group of related companies requested individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form within the given deadline.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 37 začasne uredbe, je nevzorčena skupina povezanih podjetij zahtevala individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe in odgovorila na obrazec zahtevka za TGO v danem roku.
As mentioned in recital 5 a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the group of related companies and it was found that the companies did not meet criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 5, je bil v prostorih skupine povezanih podjetij opravljen preveritveni obisk, ugotovljeno pa je bilo, da podjetja niso izpolnila prvega, drugega, in tretjega merila člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
With regard to criterion 1, the two related companies failed to provide sufficient evidence concerning the shareholders’ contribution to the companies’ capital.
V zvezi s prvim merilom dve povezani podjetji nista predložili dovolj dokazov glede prispevka delničarjev h kapitalu podjetij.
The shareholders took over the companies initially established with State funds without paying any contribution themselves.
Delničarji so prevzeli podjetji, ki sta bili ustanovljeni z državnimi sredstvi, ne da bi pri tem sami finančno sodelovali.
In addition, contrary to the requirements of the Articles of Association, no shareholders’ meetings were held, no minutes of these meetings were provided raising doubts whether business decisions were taken by the shareholders without any State interference.
Poleg tega v nasprotju z zahtevami statuta ni bilo skupščin delničarjev in zapisniki navedenih skupščin niso bili predloženi, kar je vzbudilo dvom o poslovnih odločitvah delničarjev brez kakršnega koli vmešavanja države.
In light of the above, it is considered that the companies could not demonstrate that their business decisions are not made without significant State interference.
Glede na navedeno se šteje, da podjetji nista mogli dokazati, da se država v njune poslovne odločitve znatno ne vmešava.
With regard to criterion 2, the investigation showed that the accounting records of two related companies were not audited in line with international accounting standards since they contained a number of accounting shortcomings and errors such as taxes booked/paid; continuous errors in dividends payable account; and missing depreciation were found which were not mentioned in the audit reports.
V zvezi z drugim merilom je preiskava pokazala, da računovodske evidence dveh povezanih podjetij niso bile revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, saj so vsebovale številne računovodske pomanjkljivosti in napake, kot so vknjiženi/plačani davki; stalne napake v računih za obveznosti za dividende; manjkajoče amortizacije, ki niso bile omenjene v revizijskih poročilih.
Concerning criterion 3, one related company failed to provide their Land Use Right Agreement, no booking in their accounts was found and no proof of payment was provided.
Glede tretjega merila eno povezano podjetje ni predložilo svojega sporazuma o pravici do uporabe zemljišč, v njegovih izkazih tega ni imelo zavedenega, predložilo pa ni niti dokazila o plačilu.
The second company obtained a land use right from its related company at no cost which is not booked in its records and thus not depreciated.
Drugo podjetje je od svojega povezanega podjetja pridobilo pravico do uporabe zemljišč brez stroškov, kar v njegovih evidencah ni zabeleženo in tako ni amortizirano.