natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the first claim concerning the differences in basic chemical and physical characteristics, a study of a leading research institute was submitted by an interested party.
V zvezi s prvo utemeljitvijo glede razlik v osnovnih kemičnih in fizikalnih lastnostih je zainteresirana stran predložila študijo vodilnega raziskovalnega inštituta.
This study compared, inter alia, the physical and chemical characteristics of rovings and yarns.
V študiji so bile med drugim primerjane fizikalne in kemične lastnosti rovingov in preje.
After final disclosure, some reservations were made as to the findings of this comparison which in turn provoked some important comments from certain users of yarns.
Po končnem razkritju so bili izraženi nekateri pridržki v zvezi z ugotovitvami te primerjave, ki so nato spodbudili nekaj pomembnih pripomb nekaterih uporabnikov preje.
From this information it can be concluded that an essential chemical component of rovings, mats and chopped strands is ‘silane’, a chemical coupling agent facilitating the absorption of resin for matrixes.
Na podlagi teh podatkov je mogoče sklepati, da je bistvena kemična sestavina rovingov, rogoznic in rezanih niti „silan“, tj. kemična vmesna snov, ki pospešuje absorpcijo smole za matrice.
Yarns are usually not made with such chemical agent but rather with a starch oil based chemical substance (size) which is added as a lubricant and protective agent in order for the yarn to withstand the rigours of high-speed weaving.
Preja običajno ni izdelana s takšno kemično snovjo, ampak s kemično snovjo na osnovi škrobnega olja (tj. „klej“), ki se doda kot mazivo in zaščitna snov, da lahko preja prenese težke pogoje tkanja pri veliki hitrosti.
In contrast to the rovings, where the coupling agent helps to absorb resin, ‘size’ repels resin.
Drugače kot pri rovingih, pri katerih vmesna snov pomaga absorbirati smolo, „klej“ smolo odbija.
As concerns the basic chemical characteristics, it was also established that the glass raw material for yarns has a more stable composition and higher uniformity of particle size than the raw material for the other product types.
V zvezi z osnovnimi kemičnimi lastnostmi je bilo tudi ugotovljeno, da imajo steklene surovine za prejo stabilnejšo sestavo in večjo enotnost velikosti delcev kot surovine za druge vrste izdelkov.
From the point of view of physical characteristics, yarns appear not to share the same basic physical characteristics as the other product types.
Z vidika fizikalnih lastnosti je očitno, da preja nima enakih osnovnih fizikalnih lastnosti kot druge vrste izdelkov.
Firstly, it is generally acknowledged that yarns are in general a finer material with a much lower fibre diameter and linear density than rovings.
Na splošno velja, da je preja bolj fin material, ki ima veliko manjši premer vlaken in dolžinsko maso kot rovingi.
Secondly, yarns are the only product type which is twisted (though zero twist yarns also exist).
Poleg tega je preja edina sukana vrsta izdelka (čeprav obstaja tudi nesukana preja).
With regard to the second claim concerning the differences in the production process, although all parties acknowledge that the four basic product types are manufactured from molten glass containing silica sand, soda ash, limestone, kaolin and dolomite, which is drawn through a multi-hole heat resistant platinum-rhodium trays (bushings), there are certain important differences in the production process of yarns as compared to the other products under investigation.
V zvezi z drugo utemeljitvijo o razlikah v proizvodnem postopku velja, da se postopek proizvodnje preje v nekaterih vidikih pomembno razlikuje od postopka proizvodnje drugih izdelkov v preiskavi, čeprav vse strani priznavajo, da se štiri osnovne vrste izdelkov proizvajajo iz steklene taline, ki vsebuje kremenčev pesek, sodo, apnenec, kaolin in dolomit ter se oblikuje skozi toplotno odporne platinasto-rodijeve plošče z več luknjami („puše“).
Firstly, for the production of yarns, higher precision and stable temperature control as well as energy input are required, with more strict controlling parameters applied (bushing output, etc.).
Pri proizvodnji preje so potrebni večja natančnost in nadzor enakomerne temperature ter dovod energije, pri čemer se uporabljajo strožji parametri nadzora (delovna zmogljivost puš itd.).
As the holes in the bushings are smaller, the production output is substantially lower in comparison to the other products.
Ker so luknje v pušah manjše, je obseg proizvodnje v primerjavi z drugimi izdelki veliko manjši.
Therefore, furnaces are usually used for producing either yarns or rovings — indeed, for economic reasons glass fibres producers do not alternate in the production of these two products on the same furnace.
Čeprav se lahko peči uporabljajo za proizvodnjo preje ali proizvodnjo rovingov, proizvajalci steklenih vlaken iz ekonomskih razlogov iste peči ne uporabljajo za proizvodnjo obeh vrst izdelkov.
Another difference in the production process is that, subsequent to the bushing process, yarns go through the process of twisting.
Naslednja razlika v proizvodnem postopku je ta, da gre preja po postopku oblikovanja v pušah skozi postopek sukanja.
With regard to the argument (iii) concerning the differences in the applications, it was found that the different chemical characteristics of yarns as compared to rovings, chopped strands and mats are linked to the different uses of yarns.
V zvezi z utemeljitvijo (iii) o razlikah pri uporabi je bilo ugotovljeno, da so različne kemične lastnosti preje v primerjavi z rovingi, rezanimi nitmi in rogoznicami povezane z različnimi uporabami preje.
Although it had provisionally been concluded that ‘almost all the different types of the product concerned (…) are basically used for the same purposes’, based on the comments received after provisional disclosure this issue was further investigated and it was established that, whereas rovings, chopped strands and mats were used to reinforce plastics in composites, yarns were primarily used in the production of much lighter weight engineered materials for technical fabric applications such as high performance insulation, protection and filtration applications.
Čeprav je bilo začasno sklenjeno, da se „skoraj vse različne vrste zadevnega izdelka […] v osnovi uporabljajo za iste namene“, je bilo to vprašanje na podlagi pripomb, prejetih po začasnem razkritju, dodatno preiskano, pri čemer je bilo ugotovljeno, da se preja uporablja predvsem v proizvodnji veliko lažjih inženirskih materialov za uporabo v tehničnih tkaninah, na primer za visokokakovostno izolacijo, zaščito in filtriranje, medtem ko se rovingi, rezane niti in rogoznice uporabljajo za okrepitev plastičnih materialov v kompozitih.
In some cases, yarns might also be suitable for reinforcing purposes, but this would be in a very limited number of instances only and even then, in view of the relatively very high cost price of yarns as compared to rovings, very often unlikely for economic reasons.
V nekaterih primerih je tudi preja lahko primerna za okrepitev, vendar je takšna uporaba zelo redka in še tedaj zaradi ekonomskih razlogov malo verjetna, saj so stroški preje v primerjavi s stroški rovingov sorazmerno zelo visoki.
In view of the above differences, it is not surprising that the market also perceives yarns as different from the other three products.
Glede na navedene razlike ni presenetljivo, da se tudi na trgu preja obravnava drugače od ostalih treh izdelkov.
Indeed, a market report published in an independent magazine specialised in composite products was submitted by both users and the Union industry.
Uporabniki in industrija Unije so dejansko predložili tržno poročilo, ki je bilo objavljeno v neodvisni reviji, specializirani za kompozitne izdelke.
This report, which was in no way related to this anti-dumping proceeding, firstly explained that, for reasons of production and uses, a distinction should be made between yarns and rovings.
V tem poročilu, ki nikakor ni bilo povezano s tem protidampinškim postopkom, je najprej pojasnjeno, da je treba med prejo in rovingi ločevati zaradi njihove proizvodnje in uporabe.
It then analysed in detail the global glass fibre production capacity for the two groups: (i) rovings, chopped strands and mats altogether; and (ii) yarns [3].
Poleg tega je v njem podrobno analizirana globalna zmogljivost proizvodnje steklenih vlaken za dve skupini: (i) rovinge, rezane niti in rogoznice ter (ii) prejo. [3]
As concerns the potential substitutability of yarns with the other basic product types, it should be noted that, as already stated in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation, this would in theory be possible as yarns could be used in a limited number of applications instead of other types.
V zvezi z morebitno nadomestljivostjo preje z drugimi osnovnimi vrstami izdelkov je treba opozoriti, kot je že navedeno v uvodni izjavi 19 začasne uredbe, da je to teoretično mogoče, ker se preja lahko uporablja za omejeno število drugih namenov namesto drugih vrst izdelkov.
However, following further analysis the Commission found that in practice this would not at all be an economically viable option due to the substantial cost difference in the cost of manufacturing yarns compared to that of other products, which can be explained by the differences of the production process mentioned in recital 18 above.
Kljub temu je Komisija po dodatni analizi sklenila, da to v praksi nikakor ne bi bila gospodarsko upravičena možnost zaradi bistvene razlike med stroški proizvodnje preje in stroški proizvodnje drugih izdelkov, ki jo je mogoče pojasniti z različnimi proizvodnimi postopki, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 18.
In the complaint on the basis of which this investigation was initiated, it was explicitly mentioned that the product concerned has one unique function and thus purpose or use, namely the reinforcement of plastics in composites.
V pritožbi, na podlagi katere je bila uvedena ta preiskava, je izrecno navedeno, da ima zadevni izdelek eno edinstveno funkcijo in s tem namen ali uporabo, to je okrepitev plastičnih materialov v kompozitih.
However, the above analysis established that differences in the production process of yarns as compared to rovings (and chopped strands and mats) resulted in fundamental different basic physical and chemical characteristics, in view of different applications of yarns including several uses other than composite material.
Vendar je bilo glede različnih uporab preje, vključno z več drugimi uporabami poleg uporabe v kompozitnih materialih, v navedeni analizi ugotovljeno, da se zaradi različnih postopkov proizvodnje bistveno razlikujejo tudi osnovne fizikalne in kemične lastnosti preje v primerjavi z rovingi (ter rezanimi nitmi in rogoznicami).
The comments received in this respect after final disclosure were not such as to alter this conclusion.
Na podlagi pripomb, ki so bile v zvezi s tem predložene po končnem razkritju, se ta sklepna ugotovitev ni spremenila.
In the light of above, the claim to exclude yarns on the basis of different physical and chemical characteristics and different uses as compared to rovings, chopped strands and mats, is hereby accepted.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega se zahtevek za izključitev preje na podlagi različnih fizikalnih in kemičnih lastnosti ter različnih uporab v primerjavi z rovingi, rezanimi nitmi in rogoznicami sprejme.
It is thus concluded that yarns should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned as defined in the provisional Regulation.
Zato se sklene, da je treba prejo izključiti iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka, kot je opredeljen v začasni uredbi.
Yarns are therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.
Preja je tako dokončno izključena iz postopka.
It should also be noted that a claim on exclusion of thin yarns was submitted by an interested party, but this has no more relevance in view of the exclusion of all yarns from the product scope.
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da je zainteresirana stran predložila zahtevek za izključitev tanke preje, ki pa zaradi izključitve vseh vrst preje iz obsega izdelka ni več relevanten.
Texturised rovings
Teksturirani rovingi
One interested party claimed the exclusion of texturised rovings.
Ena zainteresirana stran je zahtevala izključitev teksturiranih rovingov.
This claim was based on the argumentation that texturised rovings should be treated according to the same principle as impregnated rovings, because the product is no longer a roving but a more downstream product.
Utemeljitev zahtevka je bila, da je treba teksturirane rovinge obravnavati po enakem načelu kot impregnirane rovinge, ker izdelek ni več roving, ampak bolj izdelek s konca proizvodne verige.
In this respect it is important to repeat the reason for excluding certain impregnated rovings.
V zvezi s tem je treba ponovno navesti razloge za izključitev nekaterih impregniranih rovingov.
Indeed, certain rovings and yarns were excluded since these types were specially treated by coating and impregnating and they have a loss of ignition of more than 3 %, giving them different physical and chemical characteristics.
Nekatere vrste rovingov in preje so dejansko bile izključene, saj so te vrste posebno obdelane s prevlečenjem ali impregniranjem in imajo izgubo pri sežigu več kot 3 %, zaradi česar imajo drugačne fizikalne in kemične lastnosti.
As concerns texturised rovings, it is understood that these are rovings that are not coated or impregnated and which have a loss of ignition value of between 0,3 % and 0,13 %.
Za teksturirane rovinge velja, da niso prevlečeni ali impregnirani ter imajo izgubo pri sežigu med 0,3 % in 0,13 %.
They are therefore clearly different products as compared to the impregnated rovings which were excluded at the provisional stage.
Zato se ti izdelki jasno razlikujejo od impregniranih rovingov, ki so bili izključeni v začasni fazi.
Secondly, it was found that, like the other rovings, chopped strands and mats, texturised rovings are primarily used for reinforcing plastics in composites.
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da se teksturirani rovingi, tako kot drugi rovingi, rezane niti in rogoznice, uporabljajo predvsem za krepitev plastičnih materialov v kompozitih.
They are therefore clearly covered by the product scope definition, in the complaint as well as in the notice initiating this proceeding, and no grounds appear to exist which would justify their exclusion.
Zato so ustrezno zajeti v opredelitvi obsega izdelka, v pritožbi in obvestilu o začetku tega postopka, pri čemer očitno ni razlogov, ki bi upravičili njihovo izključitev.
It is therefore concluded that texturised rovings fall clearly and indisputably within the product scope of this proceeding and the claim to exclude them from that scope has no sufficient factual basis and has to be rejected.
Zato se sklene, da se teksturirani rovingi jasno in nesporno uvrščajo v obseg izdelka tega postopka, pri čemer zahtevek za njihovo izključitev iz navedenega obsega izdelka nima zadostne dejanske podlage in ga je treba zavrniti.
As concerns product scope, no further claims have been submitted.
V zvezi z obsegom izdelka ni bilo predloženih nobenih dodatnih zahtevkov.
In view of the above, it was deemed appropriate to revise the product scope definition as determined in the provisional Regulation.
Glede na navedeno se je zdelo primerno, da se popravi opredelitev obsega izdelka iz začasne uredbe.
Therefore, the product concerned is definitively defined as chopped glass fibre strands, of a length of not more than 50 mm; glass fibre rovings, excluding glass fibre rovings which are impregnated and coated and have a loss on ignition of more than 3 % (as determined by the ISO Standard 1887); and mats made of glass fibre filaments excluding mats of glass wool.
Zadevni izdelek je torej dokončno opredeljen kot rezane niti iz steklenih vlaken dolžine 50 mm ali manj, rovingi iz steklenih vlaken, razen tistih, ki so impregnirani in prevlečeni ter imajo izgubo pri sežigu več kot 3 % (kot je določeno v standardu ISO 1887), in rogoznice iz steklenih vlaken, razen rogoznic iz steklene volne.
In the absence of any related claim or comment and taking into account the findings set out in recitals 13 to 23 above, the conclusions in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih zahtevkov ali pripomb in ob upoštevanju ugotovitev iz uvodnih izjav 13 do 23, se sklepne ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 20 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Following the publication of the provisional measures, one exporting producer/group that was not granted MET reiterated its disagreement with the rejection of its MET claim.
Po objavi začasnih ukrepov je en proizvajalec izvoznik/skupina proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki mu/ji TGO ni bila odobrena, ponovno izrazil/izrazila svoje nestrinjanje z zavrnitvijo njegovega/njenega zahtevka za TGO.
However, the exporting producer/group in question merely repeated the claims made earlier in the proceeding without presenting any new arguments.
Vendar je zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik/skupina proizvajalcev izvoznikov le ponovil/ponovila svoje zahtevke, ki jih je izrazil/izrazila predhodno v postopku, in ni predstavil/predstavila nobenih novih utemeljitev.
It is recalled that, as explained in the provisional Regulation, those arguments were already addressed in detail in individual communication with the exporting producer/group in question.
Opozoriti je treba, da so bile navedene utemeljitve podrobno obravnavane že v individualnem sporočilu zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku/skupini proizvajalcev izvoznikov, kot je pojasnjeno v začasni uredbi.
In addition, following final disclosure, the exporting producer/group in question alleged that the Commission overlooked new evidence that it had submitted.
Poleg tega je zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik/skupina proizvajalcev izvoznikov po končnem razkritju trdil/trdila, da je Komisija spregledala nove dokaze, ki jih je predložil/predložila.
It is noted in this regard that the evidence referred to was only a submission of some documents supporting the argument already raised and replied to concerning the composition of the company’s board of directors.
V zvezi s tem je treba navesti, da so ti dokazi vključevali le predložitev nekaterih dokumentov, ki podpirajo utemeljitev v zvezi s sestavo upravnega odbora družbe, ki je že bila navedena in obravnavana.
Thus, no new evidence was presented that would put in question the decision to refuse the MET claim of the exporting producer/group in question.
Torej niso bili predstavljeni nobeni novi dokazi, ki bi spremenili odločitev, da se zahtevek zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika/skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO zavrne.
Consequently, the provisional findings with respect to the MET claim of the exporting producer/group in question are definitively confirmed.
Zato se začasne ugotovitve glede zahtevka zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika/skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO dokončno potrdijo.
In the absence of any other comments, the content of recitals 21 to 29 of the provisional Regulation concerning MET findings is hereby definitively confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb, se vsebina uvodnih izjav 21 do 29 začasne uredbe v zvezi z ugotovitvami TGO dokončno potrdi.
Further to provisional disclosure the same exporting producer/group that commented on the decision regarding its MET disagreed with the rejection of its IT claim.
Poleg začasnega razkritja se isti proizvajalec izvoznik/skupina proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki je predložil/predložila pripombe glede odločitve o TGO, ni strinjal/strinjala z zavrnitvijo zahtevka za IO.
It alleged that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the rejection of its IT claim.
Trdil/trdila je, da Komisija ni predložila zadostnih razlogov za zavrnitev njegovega/njenega zahtevka za IO.
It is reiterated in this regard that, as stated in recital 26 of the provisional Regulation, under the MET analysis part, the majority of the directors on this company’s Board of Directors were appointed by a majority State owned company.
V zvezi s tem se ponovno navaja, da je večino direktorjev v upravnem odboru zadevne družbe imenovala družba v večinski lasti države, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 26 začasne uredbe, v delu o analizi TGO.
Consequently significant State interference in the decision-making process of this exporting producer could not be excluded.
Zato ni mogoče izključiti pomembnega poseganja države v postopek sprejemanja odločitev pri tem proizvajalcu izvozniku.
Consequently, it was confirmed for this exporting producer that, given that it failed to demonstrate that it was sufficiently independent from the State, it did not fulfil the criteria of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and that thus its claim for the IT must be rejected.
Ker ta proizvajalec izvoznik ni dokazal, da je dovolj neodvisen od države, je bilo zanj potrjeno, da ne izpolnjuje meril iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe, zato je treba njegov zahtevek za IO zavrniti.
Following final disclosure, the above exporting producer and the other exporting producers not granted IT argued that the decision to reject their IT was not in accordance with the WTO Panel Report in dispute DS 397 concerning Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from the Peoples’ Republic of China.
Po končnem razkritju so navedeni proizvajalec izvoznik in drugi proizvajalci izvozniki, ki jim ni bila odobrena IO, trdili, da odločitev o zavrnitvi njihove IO ni bila v skladu s poročilom odbora STO v sporu DS 397 o dokončnih protidampinških ukrepih za nekatere pritrdilne elemente iz železa ali jekla iz Ljudske republike Kitajske.
In this respect, it should be noted that the above-mentioned Panel Report is not yet final since it has not been adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.
V zvezi s tem je treba navesti, da navedeno poročilo odbora še ni končno, ker ga ni sprejel Organ za reševanje sporov.
Moreover, the time period for appeal against that Panel Report has not lapsed.
Poleg tega se čas za predložitev pritožb v zvezi z navedenim poročilom odbora še ni iztekel.
Consequently and in the absence of any other comments concerning IT, the content of recitals 30 to 33 of the provisional Regulation is hereby definitively confirmed and it is definitely concluded that IT should not be granted to any of the sampled exporting producers/groups, which were denied MET.
Zato in ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z IO, se vsebina uvodnih izjav 30 do 33 začasne uredbe dokončno potrdi, hkrati pa se dokončno sklene, da se IO ne odobri nobenemu od vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov/skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov, katerim je bila TGO zavrnjena.
Determination of the normal value for the exporting producer/group granted MET
Določitev normalne vrednosti za proizvajalca izvoznika/skupino proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki mu/ji je bila TGO odobrena
Following the provisional disclosure, the exporting producer/group granted MET submitted that for the product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market (or not sold at all), the normal value of the like product should be calculated on the basis of constructed normal value and not as the Commission did at the provisional stage — i.e. using for normal value representative domestic prices of closely resembling types (duly adjusted).
Po začasnem razkritju je proizvajalec izvoznik/skupina proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki mu/ji je bila TGO odobrena, navedel/navedla, da je treba za vrste izdelkov, ki niso bile prodane v reprezentativnih količinah na domačem trgu (ali se sploh niso prodajale), normalno vrednost podobnega izdelka izračunati na podlagi konstruirane normalne vrednosti in ne tako, kot jo je izračunala Komisija v začasni fazi, ko je za normalno vrednost uporabila reprezentativne domače cene zelo podobnih vrst (ustrezno prilagojene).