natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, it was claimed that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large.
Strani so zlasti trdile, da vzorčenje ni bilo potrebno, ker število proizvajalcev ni bilo veliko.
In addition, it was claimed that by ‘artificially’ splitting company groups into individual legal entities, the sample would not contain some of the market leaders (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) and that the methodology for the selection of the sample is inconsistent since the sample also included two groups of companies.
Poleg tega so trdile, da z „umetnim“ ločevanjem skupin družb v posamezne pravne subjekte vzorec ne bi vseboval nekaterih vodilnih družb na trgu (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) in da metodologija za izbiranje vzorca ni skladna, ker je vzorec vključeval tudi dve skupini družb.
It was also claimed that the sample was not representative since it did not contain any producer that is selling to a related PET processor in sufficient quantities.
Strani so trdile tudi, da vzorec ni bil reprezentativen, ker ni vseboval nobenega proizvajalca, ki prodaja povezanemu predelovalcu PET v zadostnih količinah.
As a result, the institutions allegedly could not assess the real supply capability of the Union industry and did not take into account the Union industry’s conflict of interest.
Zato institucije domnevno niso mogle oceniti dejanske zmogljivosti industrije Unije v zvezi z oskrbo in niso upoštevale navzkrižja interesov industrije Unije.
Moreover, as one company did not provide all necessary information and was excluded from the sample, the representativity allegedly dropped to 28 % of EU production.
Poleg tega se je reprezentativnost domnevno zmanjšala na 28 % proizvodnje EU, ker ena družba ni zagotovila vseh potrebnih informacij in je bila izključena iz vzorca.
With regard to the argument that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large, it is reiterated that in the sampling exercise 14 Union producers belonging to eight groups of companies came forward.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da vzorčenje ni bilo potrebno, ker število proizvajalcev ni bilo veliko, se ponovno poudarja, da se je pri vzorčenju javilo 14 proizvajalcev Unije, ki pripadajo osmim skupinam družb.
Given the objectively high number of EU producers that cooperated, i.e. 14, sampling was applied in accordance with Article 27(1) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales that could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Glede na objektivno visoko število sodelujočih proizvajalcev EU, to je 14, je bilo v skladu s členom 27(1) osnovne uredbe vzorčenje uporabljeno na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega prodaje, ki ga je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
The sample selected consisted of five individual companies (with six producing locations).
Izbrani vzorec je sestavljalo pet posameznih družb (s šestimi kraji proizvodnje).
With regard to the first claim concerning the representativity of the sample, it should be noted that the institutions can include individual companies which are part of a company group within the sample as long as they are representative and have separate financial accounts.
Glede prve trditve v zvezi z reprezentativnostjo vzorca bi bilo treba opozoriti, da lahko institucije v vzorec vključijo posamezne družbe, ki so del skupine družb, če so zadevne družbe reprezentativne in imajo ločena finančna poročila.
Otherwise, investigating all fourteen EU producers belonging to the eight groups of companies would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation.
V nasprotnem primeru bi preiskava vseh štirinajstih proizvajalcev EU, ki pripadajo osmim skupinam družb, preprečila pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
However, the fact that two company groups have been included in the sample is not inconsistent with the sampling methodology applied in this case, i.e. the largest representative volumes of sales to EU clients.
Vendar je dejstvo, da sta bili v vzorec vključeni dve skupini družb, v skladu z metodologijo vzorčenja, uporabljeno v tem primeru, to je z največjim reprezentativnim obsegom prodaje strankam EU.
As regards Indorama, this group had two different production plants in the IP – one in the Netherlands and the other one in UK.
Skupina Indorama je imela v OP dva različna proizvodna obrata, in sicer enega na Nizozemskem, drugega pa v Združenem kraljestvu.
Including this group in the sample is in line with the sampling methodology applied since those plants formed one entity from the legal and financial perspective.
Vključitev te skupine v vzorec je v skladu z uporabljeno metodologijo vzorčenja, saj sta navedena obrata s pravnega in finančnega vidika tvorila en subjekt.
As regards Equipolymers, which had two separate entities producing PET in the IP (one in Italy and another one in Germany), the company reported consolidated figures for both locations.
Družba Equipolymers, ki je v OP imela dva ločena subjekta, ki sta proizvajala PET (enega v Italiji in drugega v Nemčiji), je predložila konsolidirane podatke za oba kraja.
Given that the verification of these consolidated figures was possible during one visit at the company’s headquarters, it was decided to treat Equipolymers PET producing companies as one entity for the purpose of this proceeding.
Glede na to, da je bilo med obiskom sedeža družbe te konsolidirane podatke mogoče preveriti, je bilo odločeno, da se PET proizvajajoči družbi družbe Equipolymers za namene tega postopka obravnavata kot en subjekt.
With regard to the claim that Artenius and M&G Polimeri had to be included in the sample because they were the market leaders, it is noted that none of their individual entities belonged to the companies with the highest volumes of sales to EU clients.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da sta družbi Artenius in M&G Polimeri morali biti vključeni v vzorec, ker sta vodilni družbi na trgu, se opozarja, da noben od njunih posameznih subjektov ni pripadal družbam z največjim obsegom prodaje strankam EU.
As regards the claim that the sample was not representative because it did not include one producer who produces mainly for internal consumption, it should be noted that the capability to supply can be examined in the framework of the Union interest analysis if such a claim is made and for that purpose the captive consumption can be deducted from the production volume.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da vzorec ni bil reprezentativen, ker ni vključeval enega proizvajalca, ki proizvaja zlasti za notranjo porabo, bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je zmogljivost v zvezi z oskrbo v primeru takšne trditve mogoče preveriti v okviru analize interesa Unije, pri čemer se lahko v ta namen lastna poraba odšteje od obsega proizvodnje.
Thus, there is no need to have such a producer in the sample for the examination of certain injury factors.
Zato takšnega proizvajalca za namene preverjanja nekaterih dejavnikov škode ni treba vključiti v vzorec.
Secondly, any double interest resulting from the position of a company as EU producer and processor at the same time can also be assessed in the Union interest analysis.
Poleg tega se lahko v okviru analize interesa Unije oceni tudi kakršen koli dvojni interes, ki izhaja iz položaja družbe, ki je hkrati proizvajalec in predelovalec EU.
The position of a company as EU producer and processor is not linked with the performance of the Union industry where sales to unrelated customers in the EU are taken as a benchmark.
Položaj družbe, ki je proizvajalec in predelovalec EU, ni povezan z uspešnostjo industrije Unije, kadar se kot merilo uporablja prodaja nepovezanim strankam v EU.
The claim is thus rejected.
Ta trditev se zato zavrne.
With regard to the claim concerning the overall representativity of the sample, it is reiterated that the reduction of the sample to four companies lowered the representativity from 65 % to 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers.
Kar zadeva trditev v zvezi s splošno reprezentativnostjo vzorca, se ponovno poudarja, da se je z zmanjšanjem vzorca na štiri družbe reprezentativnost zmanjšala s 65 % na 47 % prodaje vseh sodelujočih proizvajalcev.
The same four companies accounted for 52 % of the Union production.
Te štiri družbe so predstavljale 52 % proizvodnje Unije.
This is considered to be a representative sample of the EU producers in terms of sales to independent customers in the EU.
To šteje za reprezentativen vzorec proizvajalcev EU v smislu prodaje neodvisnim strankam v EU.
As regards the claim that the sample selected was not statistically valid, it is noted that Article 27(1) of the basic Regulation clearly allows for a sample to be based on the largest representative volume of the sales that can reasonably be investigated in the time available, as an alternative for a ‘statistically valid’ sample.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da izbrani vzorec ni bil statistično veljaven, se opozarja, da člen 27(1) osnovne uredbe jasno dopušča vzorec, ki temelji na največjem reprezentativnem obsegu prodaje, ki se lahko ustrezno preišče v razpoložljivem času, kot nadomestno možnost za „statistično veljaven“ vzorec.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the sampling, the findings in recitals (5) to (14) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi z vzorčenjem ni kakršnih koli drugih pripomb, se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav (5) do (14) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
It is recalled that, in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in the countries concerned and currently falling within CN code 39076020.
Poudarja se, da je bil v uvodni izjavi (16) začasne uredbe zadevni izdelek opredeljen kot polietilen tereftalat z viskoznostjo 78 ml/g ali več v skladu s standardom ISO 1628-5 s poreklom iz zadevnih držav, ki trenutno spada pod oznako KN 39076020.
Moreover, in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the investigation showed that PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned, and exported to the Union were like products.
Poleg tega je bilo v uvodni izjavi (18) začasne uredbe navedeno, da je preiskava pokazala, da sta PET, ki ga v Uniji proizvaja in prodaja industrija Unije, in PET, ki se proizvaja in prodaja na domačih trgih zadevnih držav ter izvaža v Unijo, podobna izdelka.
Since the product under investigation was considered a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types for calculating the injury margins.
Ker je bil preiskovani izdelek obravnavan kot homogen izdelek, ni bil dodatno razdeljen na različne vrste izdelkov za izračun stopenj škode.
The Government of Iran and the cooperating exporting producer submitted comments on the following schemes, countervailed in the provisional Regulation:
Iranska vlada in sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik sta predložila pripombe v zvezi z naslednjima shemama, proti katerima so bili v začasni uredbi uvedeni izravnalni ukrepi:
Measures connected to Special Economic Zones (‘SEZs’) – Petrochemical SEZ
ukrepi, povezani s posebnimi ekonomskimi conami („PEC“) – petrokemična PEC;
Financing from National Petrochemical Company to the PET exporting producer
Financiranje proizvajalca izvoznika PET s strani nacionalne petrokemične družbe
Measures connected to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) – Petrochemical SEZ
Ukrepi, povezani s posebnimi ekonomskimi conami (PEC) – petrokemična PEC
The Government of Iran (GOI) disputed that duty-free imports in Free Trade Zones of raw materials and capital goods can be countervailed.
Iranska vlada je spodbijala dejstvo, da se lahko proti dajatev prostemu uvozu surovin in investicijskega blaga v območjih proste trgovine uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi.
Free Trade Zone and Special Economic Zones are by definition duty-free zones for import and export, compatible with the WTO.
Območja proste trgovine in posebne ekonomske cone so v skladu s STO opredeljeni kot prostocarinske cone za uvoz in izvoz.
Besides, the GOI as well as the cooperating exporting producer asserted that the import of duty-free capital goods is not contingent in law on export performance because this exemption exists also for the companies established in the rest of the Iranian territory.
Poleg tega sta iranska vlada in sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik trdila, da uvoz dajatev prostega investicijskega blaga ni zakonsko pogojen z opravljenim izvozom, ker ta izjema obstaja tudi za družbe, ustanovljene na preostalem iranskem ozemlju.
With respect to the compliance of SEZs with WTO rules, it is noted that the general argument submitted cannot dispute the established facts that the subsidies in question are countervailiable as no elaborated analysis was provided to rebut the one presented in the provisional Regulation.
V zvezi s skladnostjo PEC s pravili STO se opozarja, da predložena splošna pripomba ne more nasprotovati ugotovljenemu dejstvu, da je proti zadevnim subvencijam mogoče uvesti izravnalni ukrepi, saj ni bila predložena nobena temeljita analiza, ki bi spodbijala analizo, predstavljeno v začasni uredbi.
With regards to the duty-free importation of capital goods in Iran, the information at the time submitting comments on the provisional disclosure suggests that this possibility exists only for companies that are modernizing their infrastructure, i.e. it is not an automatic provision applicable to all parties.
V zvezi z uvozom dajatev prostega investicijskega blaga v Iran informacije v času predložitve pripomb glede začasnega razkritja kažejo na to, da ta možnost obstaja le za družbe, ki posodabljajo svojo infrastrukturo, torej ne gre za samodejno določbo, ki bi veljala za vse strani.
Therefore, the above claims had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba navedeni trditvi zavrniti.
The cooperating exporting producer argued that the Commission disregarded the principle of non-discrimination given that similar rules and regimes are also applied in other countries.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala načela nediskriminacije, saj se podobna pravila in ureditve uporabljajo tudi v drugih državah.
The company also claimed that the Commission did not correctly inform it of the scope of the verification visit and the corresponding information requirements before such verification.
Družba je trdila tudi, da je Komisija ni pravilno obvestila o obsegu preveritvenega obiska in ustreznih informacijah, ki se zahtevajo pred takšnim preverjanjem.
As regards the general allegation of violation of the principle of non-discrimination, it is recalled that the Commission initiated this anti-subsidy investigation against the three countries mentioned in the complaint in line with the provisions of Article 10 of the basic Regulation.
Kar zadeva splošno trditev v zvezi s kršitvijo načela nediskriminacije, se poudarja, da je Komisija začela to protisubvencijsko preiskavo proti trem državam, navedenim v pritožbi, v skladu z določbami člena 10 osnovne uredbe.
Thus the Commission’s recommendation could only be based on the findings of this investigation.
Zato je priporočilo Komisije lahko temeljilo le na ugotovitvah te preiskave.
As to the alleged lack of advance information on the points to be investigated, it is noted that the Commission informed the cooperating exporting producer well in advance of the verification visit that it would seek information during the verification visit on the relationship between the exporting producer and its shareholder.
V zvezi z domnevnim pomanjkanjem predhodnih informacij o točkah za preiskavo se opozarja, da je Komisija sodelujočega proizvajalca izvoznika pred preveritvenim obiskom obvestila, da bo med preveritvenim obiskom potrebovala informacije o odnosu med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in njegovim delničarjem.
Therefore, these claims had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba ti trditvi zavrniti.
The cooperating exporting producer brought to the attention of the institutions two clerical mistakes in the calculation of the duty exemption on imports of one raw material of the production process and in the total import value of capital goods exempted.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je institucije opozoril na dve pisni napaki, in sicer pri izračunu oprostitve dajatve na uvoz ene surovine v proizvodnem procesu in pri celotni uvozni vrednosti oproščenega investicijskega blaga.
Those errors are herein corrected.
Navedeni napaki sta v tej uredbi popravljeni.
The revised subsidy rates are 0,14 % for the duty-free import of input products and 0,72 % for the duty-free import of capital goods.
Popravljeni stopnji subvencije sta 0,14 % za dajatev prost uvoz vhodnih proizvodov in 0,72 % za dajatev prost uvoz investicijskega blaga.
The revised total subsidy rate for this scheme is 0,86 %.
Popravljena celotna stopnja subvencije za to shemo je 0,86 %.
In the light of the above and in the absence of any other relevant comments, the findings in relation to this scheme as set out in recitals (20) to (44) of the provisional Regulation, as modified by recital (26) of this Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega in ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo kakršnih koli drugih bistvenih pripomb, se ugotovitve v zvezi s to shemo, kot so navedene v uvodnih izjavah (20) do (44) začasne uredbe in spremenjene v uvodni izjavi (26) te uredbe, potrdijo.
The cooperating exporting producer (Shahid Tondguyan Petrochemical Co. or STPC) claimed that its main shareholder, National Petrochemical Company (NPC), is not a public body and that the GOI neither entrusted nor directed NPC to make payments to STPC.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik (Shahid Tondguyan Petrochemical Co. ali STPC) je trdil, da njegov glavni delničar, nacionalna petrokemična družba (NPD), ni javni organ ter da iranska vlada niti ni pooblastila niti ni naročila NPD plačila STPC.
In addition, it was submitted that the NPC financing to the STPC has to be considered as repayable and thus not a subsidy.
Poleg tega je bila predložena pripomba, da je treba financiranje STPC s strani NPD obravnavati kot vračljivo in ne kot subvencijo.
In addressing these claims, it should be recalled that, in order to assess whether an entity should be considered as a public body for purposes of anti-subsidy investigations, the following factors are relevant: 1) government ownership; 2) the government’s presence on the entity’s board of directors; 3) the government’s control over the entity’s activities and the entity’s pursuit of governmental policies or interests; and 4) whether the entity is created by statute.
Pri obravnavi teh trditev bi bilo treba opozoriti, da so za oceno, ali bi bilo treba subjekt obravnavati kot javni organ za namene protisubvencijskih preiskav, pomembni naslednji dejavniki: 1) vladno lastništvo; 2) prisotnost vladnih uradnikov v upravnem odboru subjekta 3) vladni nadzor nad dejavnostmi subjekta in prizadevanje subjekta za vladne politike ali interese; ter 4) ali je subjekt ustanovljen z zakonom.
All these requirements have been analysed as reported in recital (52) of the provisional Regulation.
Vse te zahteve so bile analizirane, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (52) začasne uredbe.
The NPC, as a government body, does not need entrustment or delegation, concepts that refer to private entities.
NPD kot vladni organ ne potrebuje pooblastila, instituta, ki zadeva zasebne subjekte.
In fact the investigation has established that NPC’s role is to develop and operate the country’s petrochemical sector and that the company has received from the GOI the additional task of managing as a state administrative authority the Petrochemical Special Economic Zone.
V preiskavi je bilo dejansko ugotovljeno, da je vloga NPD razvijanje in upravljanje državnega petrokemičnega sektorja ter da je družba od iranske vlade prejela dodatno nalogo, da kot državni upravni organ upravlja petrokemično posebno ekonomsko cono.
Thus any claim disputing NPC’s public body role has to be rejected.
Zato je treba vsako trditev, ki spodbija vlogo NPD kot javnega organa, zavrniti.
With regards to the claim that the financing to STPC is repayable, it is pertinent to note that the investigation has established that the repayment of this funding is only a hypothetical allegation as no evidence was provided at any stage of the proceeding that such repayment has materialized.
V zvezi s trditvijo glede vračljivosti financiranja STPC je primerno opozoriti na ugotovitev preiskave, da je povračilo tega financiranja le hipotetična navedba, saj v nobeni fazi postopka ni bilo predloženih dokazov o uresničitvi takšnega povračila.
Indeed, as explained in the recital (51) of the provisional Regulation, the fact that the non-repayable funds have been accumulated since at least 2004 confirms that this is a recurring subsidy, the purpose of which is to keep in operation the sole cooperating Iranian exporting producer.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (51) začasne uredbe, dejstvo, da se nepovratna sredstva nabirajo že vsaj od leta 2004, potrjuje, da gre za ponavljajočo se subvencijo, katere namen je edinega sodelujočega iranskega proizvajalca izvoznika obdržati v obratovanju.
Account taken of the above, the relevant claim has to be rejected.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba ustrezno trditev zavrniti.
The cooperating exporting producer also argued that the subsidy amount was overstated.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je prav tako trdil, da je znesek subvencije pretiran.
To this respect it was claimed that it is a perfectly normal business practice in Iran not to add interest between a parent company (in this case NPC) and its subsidiary (in this case STPC).
V zvezi s tem je bilo navedeno, da je v Iranu povsem običajna poslovna praksa, da se med matično družbo (v tem primeru NPD) in njeno podružnico (v tem primeru STPC) obresti ne zaračunavajo.
It was also argued that when calculating the subsidy rate the amounts used on total funding provided by NPC and total turnover of STPC were not correct as the turnover figure was understated and that another amount should have been used while the total funding provided was overstated as certain amounts should not to be attributed to the funds provided from NPC to STPC.
Sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil tudi, da pri izračunu stopnje subvencije zneski, uporabljeni za celotno financiranje zagotovljeno s strani NPD, in celotni prihodek od prodaje STPC niso bili pravilni, saj so bili prihodki od prodaje podcenjeni, ter da bi bilo treba uporabiti drug znesek, medtem ko je bilo celotno financiranje, ki je bilo zagotovljeno, precenjeno, saj se nekateri zneski ne bi smeli pripisovati sredstvom, ki jih je NPD zagotovila STPC.
The above claims had to be rejected.
Zgoraj navedene trditve je bilo treba zavrniti.
With respect to the former claim concerning the interest rate calculations, it is noted that evidence gathered does not uphold the company’s claim that the normal business practice in Iran is that no interest is added between a parent company and its subsidiary in their funding transactions.
V zvezi s prvo trditvijo o izračunih obrestne mere se opozarja, da zbrani dokazi ne podpirajo trditve družbe glede običajne poslovne prakse v Iranu, na podlagi katere se obresti med matično družbo in njeno podružnico pri finančnih transakcijah ne zaračunavajo.
Moreover, any such practice is clearly inconsistent with the usual economic practice of private investors.
Poleg tega je jasno, da kakršna koli takšna praksa ni v skladu z običajno ekonomsko prakso zasebnih vlagateljev.
As regards the latter argument, it is pertinent to note that the subsidy amount has been calculated by using the financing and turnover figures provided by the cooperating exporting producer and verified during the verification visit.
V zvezi z drugo trditvijo je primerno opozoriti, da je bil znesek subvencije izračunan na podlagi podatkov o financiranju in o prihodkih od prodaje, ki jih je predložil sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik in ki so bili preverjeni med preveritvenim obiskom.