natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The revision is a consequence of the experience gained in 2010 and 2011 from the verification of the eligibility conditions for the single area payment under the single area payment scheme, which has shown that the utilised agricultural area maintained in good agricultural condition on 30 June 2003 was less than previously estimated.
Pregled je opravila zaradi izkušenj, pridobljenih v letih 2010 in 2011 pri preverjanju pogojev za upravičenost do enotnega plačila na površino v okviru sheme enotnega plačila na površino, ki so pokazale, da je bil delež obdelanih kmetijskih površin v dobrem kmetijskem stanju na dan 30. junija 2003 manjši od predvidenega.
The agricultural area for the single area payment scheme should therefore be reduced to 14000000 ha.
Kmetijsko površino za vključitev v shemo enotnega plačila na površino je zato treba zmanjšati na 14000000 ha.
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Uredbo (ES) št. 1121/2009 bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
The amendment proposed by this Regulation should apply to premium periods starting from 1 January 2012.
Spremembo, ki jo predlaga ta uredba, bi bilo treba uporabljati za premijska obdobja z začetkom 1. januarja 2012.
In Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1121/2009, the row concerning Poland is replaced by the following:
V Prilogi VIII k Uredbi (ES) št. 1121/2009 se vrstica, ki zadeva Poljsko, nadomesti z naslednjim:
It shall apply to aid applications relating to premium periods starting from 1 January 2012.
Uporablja se za zahtevke za pomoč, ki se nanašajo na premijska obdobja z začetkom 1. januarja 2012.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 538/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 538/2012
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 539/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 539/2012
For the tendering sub-period ending on 19 June 2012 under the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012, the maximum amount of aid for olive oil is hereby fixed in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Za razpisno podobdobje, ki se konča 19. junija 2012 v okviru razpisnega postopka, odprtega z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 430/2012, je najvišji znesek pomoči za oljčno olje določen v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
An allocation coefficient of 73,37992 % shall apply to tenders introduced at the maximum aid level.
Za ponudbe, vložene na ravni najvišjega zneska pomoči, se uporablja koeficient dodelitve v višini 73,37992 %.
On the basis of the tenders submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender, a maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil should be fixed for the tendering sub-period ending on 19 June 2012.
Na podlagi ponudb, vloženih ob prvi delni javni razpis, je primerno, da se določi najvišji znesek pomoči za zasebno skladiščenje oljčnega olja za razpisno podobdobje, ki se konča 19. junija 2012.
The fixing of such a maximum amount of aid would lead to the global quantity provided for in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2012 being exceeded.
Z določitvijo najvišjega zneska pomoči je bila presežena skupna količina, določena v členu 1(2) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 430/2012.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2012
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 540/2012
amending Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine
o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz določenih brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla s poreklom iz Hrvaške, Romunije, Rusije in Ukrajine
In March 2005, the Commission initiated an investigation [2] with regards to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes (SPT) originating, inter alia, in Ukraine (‘original investigation’).
Komisija je marca 2005 začela preiskavo [2] v zvezi z uvozom določenih brezšivnih cevi („BC“) s poreklom, med drugim, iz Ukrajine („prvotna preiskava“).
In June 2006 definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 [3].
Junija 2006 so bile uvedene dokončne protidampinške dajatve z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 954/2006 [3].
In addition, on 30 November 2007, the Commission published a Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, reflecting a name change of two Ukrainian exporting producers [4].
Poleg tega je Komisija 30. novembra 2007 v Uradnem listu Evropske unije objavila obvestilo, ki odraža spremembo imena dveh ukrajinskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov [4].
On 8 September 2006, Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (‘Interpipe group’ or ‘the applicants’) lodged a request [5] before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) to annul Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 as far as it affects them.
Dne 8. septembra 2006 sta Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube in Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant („Interpipe group“ ali „vložnika“) na Sodišče prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti vložila zahtevek [5] za razveljavitev Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006, za svoji družbi.
With regard to CJSC Nikopolosky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) it is recalled that their company names changed in February 2007 to CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, respectively [6].
Kar zadeva CJSC Nikopolosky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube in OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP), je treba opozoriti, da sta se podjetji februarja 2007 preimenovali v CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube in OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant [6].
Subsequently, CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube has been discontinued as a legal entity and all its property and non-property rights and liabilities were taken over by LLC Interpipe Niko Tube, which was established in December 2007.
Pozneje je CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube prenehala delovati kot pravna oseba in vse njene lastninske in nelastninske pravice ter obveznosti je prevzela LLC Interpipe Niko Tube, ki je bila ustanovljena decembra 2007.
By its judgment of 10 March 2009 [7], the CFI annulled Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for exports by the applicants exceeds that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the related trading company.
S sodbo z dne 10. marca 2009 [7] je Sodišče prve stopnje razveljavilo člen 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006, saj protidampinške dajatve, določene za izvoz vložnikov, presegajo znesek, ki bi se uporabljal, če izvozne cene ne bi bile prilagojene provizijam, ko je prodaja potekala preko povezane trgovinske družbe.
Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 was consequently annulled to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Union of goods produced and exported by the Interpipe group exceeded that which would be applicable if export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the related trading company.
Člen 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006 je bil posledično razveljavljen do te mere, da je bila protidampinška dajatev, uvedena na izvoz izdelkov Interpipe group v Evropsko unijo, večja od dajatve, ki bi se uporabljala, če izvozna cena ne bi bila prilagojena proviziji, ko je prodaja potekala preko povezane trgovinske družbe.
Consequently, the annulment of parts of the definitive anti-dumping Regulation does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of the Regulation in question.
Delna razveljavitev dokončne protidampinške uredbe torej ne pomeni razveljavitve celotnega postopka, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem zadevne uredbe.
On the other hand, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Judgment of the Courts of the European Union.
Po drugi strani pa morajo institucije Unije v skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije upoštevati sodbo sodišč Evropske unije.
Accordingly, the Union Institutions, in so complying with the Judgment, have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Judgment [10].
Tako imajo institucije Unije pri upoštevanju sodbe možnost odpraviti tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do razveljavitve, neizpodbijane dele, ki jih Sodba ne zadeva, pa pustijo nespremenjene [10].
This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the annulment of parts of that Regulation.
Ta uredba popravlja vidike Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso skladni z osnovno uredbo, kar je privedlo do razveljavitve delov navedene uredbe.
All other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 remain valid.
Vse druge ugotovitve iz Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 954/2006 ostanejo veljavne.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the anti-dumping duty rate for the Interpipe group was recalculated on the basis of the Judgment.
Zato je bila v skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije protidampinška stopnja dajatve za Interpipe group ponovno izračunana na podlagi sodbe.
B. NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
B. NOVA OCENA UGOTOVITEV, NAREJENA NA PODLAGI SODBE SODIŠČA
In this Regulation, the aspect of the Judgment that is addressed is the calculation of the dumping margin, more specifically the calculation of the adjustment made to the export price for differences in commissions in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.
V tej uredbi je vidik sodbe, ki se obravnava, izračun stopnje dampinga, natančneje izračun prilagoditve izvozne cene, upoštevajoč razlike v provizijah v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe.
As outlined in recitals (131) and (134) of the Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, the export price was adjusted for commissions pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation for sales made via the related trading company.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 131 in 134 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006, je bila izvozna cena prilagojena provizijam na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe za prodajo preko povezanih trgovinskih družb.
The CFI, in its Judgment, found, and the ECJ later confirmed, that the Union Institutions, in comparing the normal value and the export price, should not have made an adjustment for commissions in this particular case.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi ugotovilo, kar je Sodišče pozneje tudi potrdilo, da institucije Unije pri primerjavi normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene v tem posebnem primeru ne bi smele izvesti prilagoditve zaradi provizij.
Therefore, the dumping margin was re-calculated without adjusting the export price for differences in commissions.
Stopnja dampinga je bila zato ponovno izračunana, ne da bi izvozno ceno prilagodili razlikam v provizijah.
The comparison of the thus re-calculated weighted average export price with the weighted average normal value as found during the original investigation by product type on an ex-factory basis showed the existence of dumping.
Primerjava tako ponovno izračunane tehtane povprečne izvozne cene s tehtano povprečno normalno vrednostjo po vrsti izdelka na osnovi franko tovarna je pokazala prisotnost dampinga, kakor je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi.
The dumping margin established, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union frontier, duty unpaid, is 17,7 %.
Ugotovljena stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF na meji Unije brez plačane dajatve, je 17,7 %.
C. DISCLOSURE
C. RAZKRITJE
All interested parties concerned by the implementation of the Judgment were informed of the proposal to revise the rates of anti-dumping duty applicable to the Interpipe group.
Vse zainteresirane stranke, ki jih zadeva izvrševanje sodbe, so bile obveščene o predlogu za revizijo protidampinških stopenj dajatev, ki se uporabljajo za Interpipe group.
D. CONCLUSION
D. SKLEP
On the basis of the above the duty rate applicable to the Interpipe group should be amended accordingly.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega bi bilo treba stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za Interpipe group, ustrezno spremeniti.
The amended rate should also apply retroactively from 30 June 2006 (the date that Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 entered into force), in the following sense: repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.
Spremenjeno stopnjo bi bilo treba uporabljati retroaktivno od 30.6.2006 (dan začetka veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006) na naslednji način: povračilo ali odpust je treba zahtevati pri nacionalnih carinskih organih v skladu z veljavno carinsko zakonodajo.
For instance, if that repayment or remission is asked on the basis of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [11] it must, in principle, only be granted if the request was made by a submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor.
Na primer, če se povračilo ali odpust zahteva na podlagi člena 236(2) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti [11] se načeloma dodeli le, če je bila zahteva vložena pri pristojnem carinskem uradu pred potekom roka treh let, ki se šteje od dneva posredovanja sporočila teh dajatev dolžniku.
(For example, if the duty was collected shortly after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, and the request for reimbursement was made within three years from the date on which the amount of duties was communicated to the debtor, normally, the request should be granted, provided that it also fulfils all other requirements),
(Na primer, če je bila dajatev pobrana kmalu po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 954/2006 in je bila zahteva za povračilo vložena v roku treh let od dneva posredovanja sporočila teh dajatev dolžniku, se zahtevek običajno odobri, če le izpolnjuje vse druge zahteve) –
The entry concerning CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, in the table in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, shall be replaced by the following:
Vpis, ki zadeva družbi CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube in OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, se v preglednici v členu 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006 nadomesti z naslednjim:
LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)
LLC Interpipe Niko Tube in OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)
To the extent that products produced by the companies referred to in Article 1 are concerned, the amounts of duties paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 in its initial version and which exceed those as established on the basis of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 as amended by this Regulation, shall be repaid or remitted.
Če gre za izdelke, ki jih proizvajajo družbe iz člena 1, se zneski dajatev, ki so bili plačani ali vpisani v računovodske evidence v skladu s členom 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006 v prvotni različici in ki presegajo zneske, določene na podlagi člena 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006, kakor je bila spremenjena s to uredbo, povrnejo ali odpustijo.
Repayment or remission must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.
Povrnitev ali odpustitev dajatev je treba zahtevati pri nacionalnih carinskih organih v skladu z veljavno carinsko zakonodajo
Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.
V Luxembourgu, 21. junija 2012
OJ C 288, 30.11.2007, p. 34.
UL C 288, 30.11.2007, str. 34.
OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 28.
UL C 261, 28.10.2006, str. 28.
Case T-249/06 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council [2009] ECR II-383.
Zadeva T-249/06 - Interpipe Niko Tube in Interpipe NTRP proti Svetu [2009] Recueil II-383.
OJ C 98, 31.3.2012, p. 2.
UL C 98, 31.3.2012, str. 2.
Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR II-3939.
Zadeva T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) proti Svetu [1998] Recueil II-3939.
Case C-458/98 P IPS v Council [2000] ECR I-8147.
Zadeva C-458/98 P IPS proti Svetu [2000] Recueil I-8147.
The Council of the European Union and the Commission, as well as the applicants, lodged appeals requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) to set aside the CFI judgment of 10 March 2009.
Svet Evropske unije in Komisija ter vložnika so vložili pritožbe z zahtevo, da Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Sodišče“) razveljavi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10. marca 2009.
On 16 February 2012, the ECJ dismissed both the appeals and the cross-appeal (‘the Judgment’) [8] and thus confirmed the CFI (now the General Court) judgment of 10 March 2009.
Dne 16. februarja 2012 je Sodišče zavrnilo pritožbo in nasprotno pritožbo („sodba“) [8] ter tako potrdilo sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje (zdaj Splošno sodišče) z dne 10. marca 2009.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 541/2012
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 541/2012
terminating the interim review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing those measures
o zaključku vmesnega pregleda protidampinških ukrepov v zvezi z uvozom furfuraldehida s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske ter o razveljavitvi navedenih ukrepov
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), (5) 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 členov 9 ter 11(3), (5) in (6) Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘Commission’) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom predložila Evropska komisija („Komisija“),
In 1995, the Council imposed by Regulation (EC) No 95/95 [2] a definitive anti-dumping duty in the form of a specific duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) (‘the original anti-dumping measures’).
Leta 1995 je Svet z Uredbo (ES) št. 95/95 [2] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev v obliki posebne dajatve na uvoz furfuraldehida s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“ ali „zadevna država“) („prvotni protidampinški ukrepi“).
Following an interim review initiated in May 1997 upon the request of a Chinese exporter, the measures were maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 2722/1999 [3] for a further period of four years.
Na podlagi vmesnega pregleda, ki se je začel maja 1997 na zahtevo kitajskega izvoznika, so bili ukrepi z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 2722/1999 [3] ohranjeni za nadaljnja štiri leta.
In April 2005, following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 [4], extended the measures for a further period of five years.
Svet je aprila 2005 po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa z Uredbo (ES) št. 639/2005 [4] podaljšal ukrepe za nadaljnjih pet let.
In May 2011, following a further expiry review, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 [5], extended the measures for a further period of five years.
Svet je maja 2011 po nadaljnjem pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 453/2011 [5] podaljšal ukrepe za nadaljnjih pet let.
The specific duty rate was set at the same level as in the original anti-dumping measures, i.e. EUR 352 per tonne.
Raven posebne stopnje dajatve je bila enaka kot pri prvotnih protidampinških ukrepih, tj. 352 EUR na tono.
Recital 84 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 states that the Council considered it appropriate to assess if the level of the duty was still relevant, given that the specific duty had been established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation in 1995 and never revised.
V uvodni izjavi 84 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 453/2011 je navedeno, da je Svet štel za primerno, da se oceni, ali je stopnja dajatve še ustrezna, glede na to, da je bila ta posebna dajatev določena na podlagi ugotovitev iz prvotne preiskave leta 1995 in nikoli ni bila revidirana.
The Commission would therefore consider the ex officio initiation of an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija zato meni, da bi bilo primerno začeti vmesni pregled po uradni dolžnosti v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
Having determined that the Commission had at its disposal sufficient prima facie evidence for the initiation of an ex officio interim review, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced on 5 July 2011, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [6] (‘the notice of initiation’), the initiation of an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom, in ko je ugotovila, da je imela na razpolago dovolj dokazov prima facie za začetek vmesnega pregleda po uradni dolžnosti, 5. julija 2011 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [6], („obvestilo o začetku“) napovedala vmesni pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
The investigation concerning dumping covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Preiskava dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. julija 2010 do 30. junija 2011 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).
Preučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2008 do konca obdobja preiskave („obravnavano obdobje“).
The Commission officially advised the Union industry, exporting producers in the country concerned, importers, users known to be concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned of the initiation of the interim review.
Komisija je o začetku vmesnega pregleda uradno obvestila industrijo Unije, proizvajalce izvoznike v zadevni državi, uvoznike, uporabnike, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, in pristojne organe zadevne države.
Sampling for exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China
Vzorčenje za proizvajalce izvoznike iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi zelo velikega števila proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK se je zdelo primerno, da se v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe preuči, ali je treba uporabiti vzorčenje.
In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the exporting producers in the PRC were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in bi v tem primeru izbrala vzorec, so bili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK pozvani, naj se v 15 dneh po začetku pregleda javijo Komisiji in ji predložijo informacije, zahtevane v obvestilu o začetku.
Given that no exporting producers came forward to cooperate, sampling was therefore not necessary.
Ker se za sodelovanje ni javil noben proizvajalec izvoznik, vzorčenje ni bilo potrebno.
No other parties made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation.
V rokih, objavljenih v obvestilu o začetku, se ni javila nobena druga stran.