natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OJ L 208, 13.8.2011, p. 82.
UL L 208, 13.8.2011, str. 82.
Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 17029095 from 17 August 2011
Spremenjene reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter proizvode z oznako KN 17029095, ki se uporabljajo od 17. avgusta 2011
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 824/2011
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 824/2011
terminating the partial reopening of the anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
o zaključku delne obnove vmesnega pregleda protidampinške preiskave o uvozu folije iz polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom iz Indije
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 and Article 11(3) and (6) 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] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9 ter člena 11(3) in (6) Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom predložila Evropska komisija („Komisija“),
By Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 [2] (the original Regulation) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1676/2001 [2] („izvirna uredba“) uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz folije iz polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije.
On 8 March 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 [3] (the amending Regulation) and following a partial interim review investigation, the anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was amended.
Protidampinška dajatev na uvoz folije iz PET s poreklom iz Indije je bila spremenjena 8. marca 2006 z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 366/2006 [3] („uredba o spremembi“) in po preiskavi v zvezi z delnim vmesnim pregledom.
On 6 November 2007, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 [4] (the review Regulation) and following an expiry review the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was confirmed.
Protidampinška dajatev na uvoz folije iz PET s poreklom iz Indije je bila z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1292/2007 [4] („uredba o pregledu“) in po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa potrjena 6. novembra 2007.
MTZ Polyfilms Ltd (MTZ Polyfilms), an Indian exporting producer which cooperated with the above investigations, obtained an individual duty rate by the original Regulation.
Indijskemu proizvajalcu izvozniku MTZ Polyfilms Ltd („MTZ Polyfilms“), ki je sodeloval v navedenih preiskavah, je bila z izvirno uredbo odobrena individualna stopnja dajatve.
This duty rate was revised by the amending Regulation.
Ta stopnja dajatve je bila spremenjena z uredbo o spremembi.
On 19 May 2006, MTZ Polyfilms lodged an application [5] at the General Court (‘the Court of First Instance’ before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) seeking the annulment of the amending Regulation in so far as it applies to MTZ Polyfilms.
Družba MTZ Polyfilms je 19. maja 2006 vložila tožbo [5] pri Splošnem sodišču („Sodišče prve stopnje“ pred začetkom veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe) z namenom doseči razglasitev ničnosti uredbe o spremembi v delu, ki se uporablja za MTZ Polyfilms.
By its judgment of 17 November 2009 in Case T-143/06 [6], the General Court annulled the amending Regulation to the extent that it imposed an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms (the judgment).
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 17. novembra 2009 v zadevi T-143/06 [6] razglasilo za nično uredbo o spremembi v delu, ki uvaja protidampinško dajatev za MTZ Polyfilms („sodba“).
The General Court found that the amending Regulation was adopted on an incorrect legal basis.
Ugotovilo je, da je bila uredba o spremembi sprejeta na napačni pravni podlagi.
It considered, in particular, that Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation could not serve as a legal basis allowing the institutions, when determining the export price, not to apply the methodology prescribed by Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.
Še zlasti je menilo, da člen 11(3) osnovne uredbe ne more biti pravna podlaga, ki institucijam pri določanju izvoznih cen omogoča, da ne uporabijo metodologije iz člena 2(8) in (9) osnovne uredbe.
On 13 May 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 [7] the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India was amended in view of the expiry of the up till then parallel countervailing duty on 9 March 2011.
Zaradi izteka zaenkrat vzporedne izravnalne dajatve 9. marca 2011 je bila 13. maja 2011 z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 469/2011 [7] spremenjena dokončna protidampinška dajatev na uvoz folije iz PET s poreklom iz Indije.
Partial reopening
Delna obnova
On 20 May 2010 a notice [8] was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Dne 20. maja 2010 je bilo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije objavljeno obvestilo [8].
In the notice parties were informed that, in view of the judgment of the General Court mentioned in recital 5, imports into the European Union of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms were no longer subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by the amending Regulation and the review Regulation, and that definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to these regulations for the product concerned manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms should be repaid or remitted.
V obvestilu so bile strani obveščene, da glede na sodbo Splošnega sodišča iz uvodne izjave 5 za uvoz v Evropsko unijo folije iz PET, ki jo proizvaja družba MTZ Polyfilms, ne veljajo več protidampinški ukrepi, uvedeni z uredbo o spremembi in uredbo o pregledu, ter da bi bilo treba dokončne protidampinške dajatve, plačane v skladu s tema uredbama za zadevni izdelek, ki ga proizvaja družba MTZ Polyfilms, povrniti ali odpustiti.
The notice also partially reopened the relevant anti-dumping interim review investigation concerning imports of PET film originating, inter alia, in India in order to implement the above judgment of the General Court as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned.
Z obvestilom je bila prav tako delno ponovno odprta zadevna protidampinška preiskava v zvezi z vmesnim pregledom glede uvoza folije iz PET s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije za izvrševanje navedene sodbe Splošnega sodišča v zvezi z družbo MTZ Polyfilms.
Moreover, by the same notice, MTZ Polyfilms was invited, should it consider that aspects of the findings which led to the adoption of the amending Regulation other than the one mentioned in recital 5 were no longer valid, to present a duly substantiated request for review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Z istim obvestilom je bila družba MTZ Polyfilms pozvana, naj predloži ustrezno utemeljeno zahtevo za pregled v skladu z določbami člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe, če meni, da vidiki ugotovitev, zaradi katerih je bila sprejeta uredba o spremembi, razen vidika iz uvodne izjave 5, niso več veljavni.
Representations were received from two exporting producers in India (one being the party directly concerned, i.e. MTZ Polyfilms) and the Union industry.
Pripombe so predložili dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz Indije (eden od njiju je stran, ki jo to neposredno zadeva, torej družba MTZ Polyfilms) in industrija Unije.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT
IZVRŠEVANJE SODBE
As a preliminary remark it is important to note that MTZ Polyfilms did not reply to the invitation referred to in recital 9.
V uvodni opombi je treba poudariti, da se družba MTZ Polyfilms ni odzvala na vabilo iz uvodne izjave 9.
MTZ Polyfilms argued that a partial reopening of a review investigation is illegal because there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for a possibility to reopen an investigation.
Družba MTZ Polyfilms je trdila, da je delna ponovna uvedba preiskave v zvezi s pregledom nezakonita, ker v osnovni uredbi ni nobene posebne določbe, ki bi dovoljevala možnost ponovne uvedbe preiskave.
The same company also submitted that the Commission’s reference in the notice referred to in recital 7 to the judgment in the IPS case (IPS judgment) [9] was erroneous as that judgment concerned an anti-dumping proceeding which had been initiated in a different legal framework as under the basic Regulation in force at that time, an anti-dumping proceeding consisted of several stages which included the initial investigation and all subsequent review investigations.
Ista družba je navedla tudi, da je bil sklic Komisije v obvestilu iz uvodne izjave 7 na sodbo v zadevi IPS („sodba IPS“) [9] napačen, saj se je navedena sodba nanašala na protidampinški postopek, ki je bil sprožen v drugačnem pravnem okviru in ne v skladu s takrat veljavno osnovno uredbo, v skladu s katero je bil protidampinški postopek sestavljen iz več stopenj, ki so vključevale začetno preiskavo in vse nadaljnje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
The IPS judgment therefore dealt with the possibility of opening a new investigation within the framework of an ongoing proceeding.
S sodbo IPS se je torej obravnavala možnost odprtja nove preiskave v okviru postopka, ki trenutno poteka.
The distinction between a proceeding and an investigation had been written out of the basic Regulation in 1995 and, in the present case, the Commission had not initiated a new investigation in the framework of a proceeding but reopened an investigation which, according to MTZ Polyfilms, had already been concluded by the imposition of definitive measures.
Razlika med postopkom in preiskavo je bila izpisana iz osnovne uredbe leta 1995, v tem primeru pa Komisija ni začela nove preiskave v okviru postopka, temveč je obnovila preiskavo, ki je bila po mnenju družbe MTZ Polyfilms že zaključena z uvedbo dokončnih ukrepov.
MTZ Polyfilms submitted that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on Council Regulation (EЕC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community [10] (the old basic Regulation), under which mandatory deadlines, in particular the maximum time for concluding a review investigation of 15 months from the date of initiation, did not yet apply.
Družba MTZ Polyfilms je navedla, da se zadeva IPS ne more uporabljati kot precedenčni primer, ker je temeljila na Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2423/88 z dne 11. julija 1988 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu ali subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske gospodarske skupnosti [10] („prejšnja osnovna uredba“), v skladu s katero še ni bilo treba uporabljati obveznih rokov, zlasti najdaljšega roka za sklenitev preiskave v zvezi s pregledom, ki je 15 mesecev od datuma začetka.
It argued that in this case, the 15 months deadline had lapsed soon after the reopening on 20 May 2010, since the amended measures were imposed more than 14 months after the initiation of the partial interim review investigation.
Menila je, da je v tem primeru 15-mesečni rok potekel kmalu po ponovnem odprtju 20. maja 2010, saj so bili spremenjeni ukrepi uvedeni več kot 14 mesecev po začetku preiskave v zvezi z delnim vmesnim pregledom.
Finally, according to MTZ Polyfilms, the judgment required no implementing measures, since the judgment is clear in all material aspects, simple and without any specific reservation and/or qualification annulling the amending Regulation as far as it concerned imports into the Union of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms.
Po mnenju družbe MTZ Polyfilms sodba ni zahtevala izvedbenih ukrepov, saj je sodba jasna glede materialnih vidikov, preprosta in brez posebnega zadržka in/ali omejitve za razglasitev ničnosti uredbe o spremembi glede uvoza v Unijo folije iz PET, ki jo proizvaja družba MTZ Polyfilms.
Another Indian exporting producer of PET film, which had cooperated with the interim review, argued that, as in calculating its dumping margin the institutions had applied the same approach as the one which had been condemned by the General Court in its judgment, the institutions should now also revise the methodology for calculating dumping of this company, resulting in the absence of a dumping margin.
Drugi indijski proizvajalec izvoznik folije iz PET, ki je sodeloval v vmesnem pregledu, je trdil, da so institucije pri izračunu stopnje dampinga uporabile enak pristop, kakršnega je Splošno sodišče v svoji sodbi obsodilo, zato bi morale institucije zdaj pregledati tudi metodologijo izračuna dampinga za to družbo, kar bi pomenilo, da stopnje dampinga ne bi bilo.
The Union industry claimed that, since the General Court had annulled the amending Regulation in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms, the individual duty rate calculated and imposed in 2001 should be reimposed as, in the interim review, MTZ Polyfilms was still found to be dumping by a considerable margin.
Zdaj, ko je Splošno sodišče uredbo o spremembi razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem uvaja protidampinško dajatev za družbo MTZ Polyfilms, je industrija Unije menila, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti individualno stopnjo dajatve, izračunano in uvedeno leta 2001, saj je bila v vmesnem pregledu ugotovljena znatna stopnja dampinga pri družbi MTZ Polyfilms.
In this respect, it also pointed to a long-standing pattern of circumvention and origin fraud allegedly practised by the Indian exporters.
V zvezi s tem je opozorila tudi na dolgoletni vzorec izogibanja in goljufije glede izvora, ki naj bi ju uporabljali indijski izvozniki.
Moreover, it alleged that there was a huge existing overcapacity in India and that in several other major world markets trade defence measures were in place against Indian PET film, which would inevitably lead to greater import volumes on the Union market of PET film manufactured by MTZ Polyfilms.
Trdila je tudi, da obstajajo v Indiji velike presežne zmogljivosti in da na nekaterih večjih svetovnih trgih veljajo ukrepi trgovinske zaščite proti indijski foliji iz PET, kar bi nedvomno vodilo k večjemu uvozu folije iz PET, ki jo proizvaja družba MTZ Polyfilms, na trg Unije.
The Union industry also called on the Commission to ensure the registration of imports as it considered that the two conditions for such registration laid down in Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation had been met.
Industrija Unije je Komisijo pozvala še, naj zagotovi registracijo uvoza, saj je menila, da sta pogoja za tako registracijo iz člena 10(4) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena.
In respect of the alleged illegality of the reopening, it is recalled that in its IPS judgment the General Court recognised that in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Glede domnevne nezakonitosti ponovne uvedbe se opozarja, da je Splošno sodišče v sodbi IPS ugotovilo, da v primerih, pri katerih je postopek sestavljen iz več upravnih korakov, razglasitev ničnosti enega od delov ne pomeni, da je za ničnega razglašen celoten postopek.
Consequently, the annulment of the amending Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Zato razglasitev ničnosti uredbe o spremembi v delu, ki se nanaša na eno stranko, ne pomeni, da je ničen celotni postopek, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem zadevne uredbe.
Moreover, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union institutions are required to comply with the judgment.
Poleg tega morajo institucije Evropske unije v skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) upoštevati sodbo.
This also implies the possibility of remedying the aspects of the amending Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court of Justice judgment — as was held in case C-458/98 P [11] (the IPS appeal case).
To pomeni tudi, da se lahko uredba o spremembi v vidikih, zaradi katerih je bila razglašena za nično, popravi, ob tem pa se deli, ki niso bili izpodbijani in o katerih Sodišče ni odločalo, ne spremenijo, kakor to izhaja iz zadeve C-458/98 P [11] („pritožba IPS“).
In the light of the above, the claim that there is no legal basis for the partial reopening of a review investigation was found to be unwarranted.
Glede na navedeno je bila trditev, da ni pravne podlage za delno obnovo preiskave v zvezi s pregledom, ugotovljena za neutemeljeno.
The claim that the introduction of deadlines to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from following the approach underlying the IPS case was also found to be unwarranted.
Prav tako je bila za neutemeljeno ugotovljena trditev, da uvedba rokov za zaključek protidampinških preiskav Komisiji onemogoča, da nadaljuje s pristopom, na katerem temelji zadeva IPS.
It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a Court of Justice judgment.
Šteje se, da ta rok ni relevanten za izvršitev sodbe Sodišča Evropske unije.
Indeed, such deadline only governs the completion of the initial review investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken for instance as a result of judicial review.
Tak rok ureja le zaključek začetne preiskave v zvezi s pregledom od datuma začetka do datuma dokončnega ukrepa in ne zadeva nobenega poznejšega ukrepa, ki ga je morebiti treba sprejeti na primer zaradi ponovne sodne presoje.
It should be noted that the General Court has not handed down any judgments which apply this reasoning, as that would make it impossible to finalise any anti-dumping investigation which was annulled by the General Court in order to take account of the General Court’s findings (as Article 266 TFEU requires).
Upoštevati je treba, da Splošno sodišče še ni izreklo sodbe, v kateri bi bil uporabljen tak argument, saj bi bilo tako nemogoče zaključiti protidampinško preiskavo, ki jo je Splošno sodišče razglasilo za nično, da bi upoštevalo ugotovitve Splošnega sodišča (kot se zahteva v členu 266 PDEU).
Indeed, the General Court’s judgment will always be handed down at a point in time when the deadline for the investigation has expired.
Splošno sodišče bo vedno izreklo sodbo po izteku roka za preiskavo.
Concerning the claim of the other Indian exporting producer of PET film, it is recalled that the General Court annulled the amending Regulation only to the extent that it imposes an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms.
Glede trditve drugega indijskega proizvajalca izvoznika folije iz PET se opominja, da je Splošno sodišče razglasilo za nično uredbo o spremembi le v delu, v katerem uvaja protidampinško dajatev za družbo MTZ Polyfilms.
As a consequence, the judgment is no basis for revisiting the approach and/or calculations with regard to other exporting producers.
Posledično sodba ni podlaga za ponovni pregled pristopa in/ali izračunov glede drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Therefore, this claim has to be rejected.
Zato je treba to trditev zavrniti.
Concerning the Union industry’s claim mentioned in recital 15, the reasoning in recital 17 is equally valid, i.e. case-law has established that, if the Court of Justice judges that an illegality has taken place, the Commission can resume an investigation procedure at the point just before the illegality occurred.
Glede trditve industrije Unije iz uvodne izjave 15 je razlaga iz uvodne izjave 17 prav tako veljavna, in sicer je bilo s sodno prakso ugotovljeno, da če Splošno sodišče odloči, da je prišlo do nezakonitosti, lahko Komisija nadaljuje s preiskavo v trenutku, ko je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Therefore, there is no immediate need to resort to previously established data, as argued by the Union industry.
Zato ni takojšnje potrebe po zatekanju k predhodno ugotovljenim podatkom, kot trdi industrija Unije.
Concerning the Union industry’s request for registration of imports, based on the information in the request and according to the statistical data available to the Commission it was concluded that the condition mentioned in Article 10(4)(b) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a substantial rise in the imports concerned, was not met (see also recital 24).
Glede zahteve industrije Unije o registraciji uvoza, ki temelji na informacijah v zahtevi in v skladu s statističnimi podatki, ki so na voljo Komisiji, je bilo ugotovljeno, da pogoj iz člena 10(4)(b) osnovne uredbe, tj. znatna rast zadevnega uvoza, ni bil izpolnjen (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 24).
The request for registration was therefore rejected.
Zahteva za registracijo je bila zato zavrnjena.
As mentioned in recital 5, the General Court annulled the amending Regulation as far as MTZ Polyfilms is concerned as it considered that Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation cannot serve as a legal basis allowing the institutions, when determining the export price, to depart from the methodology prescribed by Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 5, je Splošno sodišče za nično razglasilo uredbo o spremembi glede družbe MTZ Polyfilms in je menilo, da člen 11(3) osnovne uredbe ne more biti pravna podlaga, ki institucijam pri določanju izvoznih cen omogoča, da odstopajo od metodologije iz člena 2(8) in (9) osnovne uredbe.
It is also noted that all findings in the review Regulation, other than the ones which the General Court found to be erroneous, remain formally valid.
Ugotovljeno je tudi, da ostajajo formalno veljavne vse ugotovitve v uredbi o pregledu, razen tistih, za katere je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da so napačne.
This applies, in particular, to the finding that there were significant changes in circumstances justifying an amendment to the anti-dumping duty applicable to MTZ Polyfilms.
To zlasti velja za ugotovitev, da je prišlo do znatnih sprememb v okoliščinah, ki upravičujejo spremembo protidampinške dajatve, ki velja za družbo MTZ Polyfilms.
Therefore, this aspect of the review was not reinvestigated in the context of the current procedure.
Zato ta vidik pregleda v okviru veljavnega postopka ni bil ponovno preiskan.
During the review investigation period (RIP), MTZ Polyfilms exported the product concerned to the Union under a price undertaking and these sales respected the terms of the undertaking, i.e. were at prices which were above the agreed minimum prices.
V obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom (OPP) je družba MTZ Polyfilms zadevni izdelek izvažala v Unijo v skladu z zavezami glede cen in ta prodaja je spoštovala pogoje zaveze, kar pomeni, da se je izdelek prodajal po cenah, ki so presegale dogovorjene najnižje cene.
For the reasons explained in the review Regulation, it is confirmed that the export prices to the Union during the RIP cannot be used to calculate the dumping margin of MTZ Polyfilms.
Zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uredbi o pregledu, je potrjeno, da izvoznih cen v Unijo med OPP ni mogoče uporabljati za izračun dampinške stopnje družbe MTZ Polyfilms.
In view of the above considerations, the current investigation was limited to an analysis of the facts available to the institutions regarding the export activities of MTZ Polyfilms.
Glede na navedene premisleke je bila trenutna preiskava omejena na analizo institucijam dostopnih dejstev glede izvoznih dejavnosti družbe MTZ Polyfilms.
In this respect, as the Court of Justice has held in the IPS judgment, the institutions, when resuming an anti-dumping investigation following a judgment annulling a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties, are entitled to take account of recent information, including information dating from after the original investigation period.
Kot je Sodišče navedlo v sodbi IPS so institucije v zvezi s tem pri nadaljevanju protidampinške preiskave po sodbi o razglasitvi ničnosti uredbe o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev upravičene do upoštevanja najnovejših informacij, vključno z informacijami, ki izhajajo iz obdobja po obdobju prvotne preiskave.