natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the PRC should therefore be modified for GT Enterprise and the same duty should be imposed to the other exporting producer within the group by amending that Regulation accordingly.
Ukrepe, uvedene z Uredbo (EU) št. 492/2010 o uvozu natrijevega ciklamata s poreklom iz LRK, je zato treba spremeniti za družbo GT Enterprise, isto dajatev pa je treba uvesti za druge proizvajalce izvoznike v skupini, in sicer tako, da se spremeni navedena uredba.
No individual injury margin can be established in the current review, since it is limited to the examination of dumping as far as the GT Enterprise and its related companies within the group are concerned.
V sedanjem pregledu ni mogoče določiti individualne stopnje, saj je omejena na preiskavo dampinga v zvezi z družbo GT Enterprise in njenimi povezanimi družbami v skupini.
Therefore, the dumping margin established in the current review was compared to the injury margin as established in the original investigation.
Zato je bila stopnja dampinga, določena v sedanjem pregledu, primerjana s stopnjo škode, določene v prvotni preiskavi.
Since the latter was higher than the dumping margin found in the current review, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed for the group of companies concerned at the level of the dumping margin found in the current review.
Ker je bila slednja višja od stopnje dampinga, ugotovljene v sedanjem pregledu, je treba za zadevno skupino družb uvesti dokončno protidampinško dajatev na ravni stopnje dampinga, ugotovljene v prvotnem pregledu.
Regarding the form of the measure, it was considered that the amended anti-dumping duty should take the same form as the duties imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010.
Glede na obliko ukrepa se sklene, da mora spremenjena protidampinška dajatev biti iste vrste kot dajatve, uvedene z Uredbo (EU) št. 492/2010.
To ensure efficiency of the measures and to discourage price manipulation it was considered appropriate to impose duties in the form of a specific amount per kilo.
Za zagotovitev učinkovitosti ukrepov in odvračanja od manipulacije cen se je štelo za primerno uvesti dajatev v obliki določenega zneska na kilogram.
As a result, the anti-dumping duty to be imposed on imports of the product concerned produced and sold for export to the Union by the group of companies concerned, calculated on the basis of the dumping margin as established in the current review expressed as a specific amount per kilo, should be EUR 0,23 per kilo.
Posledično je treba za uvoz zadevnega izdelka, ki ga zadevna skupina družb prodaja za izvoz v Unijo, uvesti protidampinško dajatev v višini 0,23 EUR na kg, izračunano na podlagi stopnje dampinga, kakor je bila ugotovljena v sedanjem pregledu ter izražena v določenem znesku na kilogram.
The group of companies concerned as well as the other parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the amendment of the anti-dumping measures in force.
Skupine zadevnih družb in druge zainteresirane strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala predlagati sprememba veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov.
Rainbow group commented on the final disclosure.
Skupna Rainbow je predložila pripombe na končno razkritje.
These comments related mostly to the withdrawal of the complaint in the ongoing investigation concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating in the People’s Republic of China limited to two Chinese exporting producers, Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited and Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited (‘Fang Da group’) (‘parallel proceeding’) [7].
Te pripombe so se v glavnem nanašale na umaknitev pritožbe v tekoči preiskavi o uvozu natrijevega ciklamata s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, omejene na dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika, in sicer Fang Da Food Additive (Shen Zhen) Limited in Fang Da Food Additive (Yang Quan) Limited („skupina Fang Da“) („vzporedni postopek“) [7].
Rainbow claimed that the withdrawal of the complaint in the parallel proceeding should, logically and legally, also result in the termination of anti-dumping measures against other producers in the PRC or, at the least, result in the termination of the current review with respect to Rainbow group.
Skupina Rainbow je trdila, da bi morala umaknitev pritožbe v vzporednem postopku tako logično kot pravno pomeniti ustavitev protidampinških postopkov proti drugim proizvajalcem v LRK ali vsaj ustavitev sedanje preiskave v zvezi s skupino Rainbow.
It demanded the termination of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 arguing that in the absence of any finding that imports by Fang Da were not dumped and/or imports by Fang Da were not causing injury, the principle of non-discrimination contained in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation mandates the termination of the anti-dumping measures imposed.
Zahtevala je ustavitev protidampinških ukrepov, uvedenih z Uredbo (EU) št. 492/2010, pri čemer je trdila, da načelo nediskriminacije iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe določa ustavitev uvedenih protidampinških ukrepov, če je bilo ugotovljeno, da se uvoz s strani Fang Da ni izvajal po dampinških cenah in/ali ta uvoz ni povzročal škode.
To support its argument it referred to previous Council Regulations where simultaneous interim reviews concerning imports of some countries were terminated without the imposition of measures following the non-imposition of measures in anti-dumping investigations concerning the imports of the same products from other countries (LAECs [8], flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel [9]).
Svojo trditev je podprla s predhodnimi uredbami Sveta, v katerih so bili sočasni vmesni pregledi o uvozih iz nekaterih držav ustavljeni brez uvedbe ukrepov, ker ukrepi v protidampinških preiskavah o uvozu istih izdelkov iz drugih držav (veliki aluminijasti elektrolitski kondenzatorji [8], ploščati valjani izdelki iz železa ali nelegiranega jekla [9]) niso bili uvedeni.
However, it should be noted that these cases refer to investigations where several countries were concerned and the principle of non-discrimination was applied vis-à-vis imports from different countries.
Vendar bi bilo treba opozoriti, da se ti primeri nanašajo na preiskave, v katere je bilo vključenih več držav, in da se je načelo nediskriminacije uporabilo za uvoz iz različnih držav.
Secondly, in these cases the reason for terminating the measures on some countries was that measures on other countries were not imposed because the Council did not adopt the proposal within the statutory time limits (LAECs, flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel).
Drugič, v teh primerih je vzrok za ustavitev ukrepov v nekaterih državah ta, da ukrepi za druge države niso bili uvedeni, ker Svet ni sprejel predloga v okviru predpisanih rokov (veliki aluminijasti elektrolitski kondenzatorji, ploščati valjani izdelki iz železa ali nelegiranega jekla).
Therefore even though indeed it was found necessary to terminate the proceedings of anti-dumping measures in the simultaneous proceedings in the quoted cases in order to respect the principle of non-discrimination, these have no relevance for the current review.
Čeprav je bilo dejansko ugotovljeno, da je zaradi upoštevanja načela nediskriminacije v navedenih primerih nujno ustaviti postopke sočasnih protidampinških ukrepov, ti niso relevantni za sedanjo preiskavo.
A further reference to the approach taken in monosodium glutamate [10] concerns a case where the complainant intended to withdraw its complaint concerning imports of Brazil even though these were found to have been dumped.
Dodatno sklicevanje na pristop v zvezi mononatrijevim glutamatom [10] zadeva primer, v katerem je vložnik nameraval umakniti pritožbo v zvezi z uvozom iz Brazilije, čeprav je bilo ugotovljeno, da je uvažal po dampinških cenah.
In that case it was envisaged not to accept the withdrawal of the complaint because it was concluded that to take measures against the other countries in the absence of measures against Brazil would have been discriminatory.
V tem primeru je bilo sklenjeno, da se umik pritožbe ne sprejme, saj je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi bilo sprejetje ukrepov proti drugim državam in ne tudi Braziliji diskriminatorno.
Furthermore, the two situations are quite different.
Poleg tega se situaciji zelo razlikujeta.
In the parallel proceeding, the complaint was withdrawn and it was concluded that the termination was not against the Union interest.
V vzporednem postopku je bila pritožba umaknjena in ugotovljeno je bilo, da ustavitev ni bila v nasprotju z interesi Unije.
In the current review, the request was maintained and it was found that the dumping by the Rainbow group increased.
V sedanjem pregledu je bil zahtevek ohranjen in ugotovljeno je bilo, da je skupina Rainbow še povečala dampinško prodajo.
Therefore, increasing the duty for that group does not constitute discrimination.
Zato povečanje dajatve za navedeno skupino ne pomeni diskriminacije.
The Rainbow group also demanded that the withdrawal of the complaint should result in the termination of the current review with respect to Rainbow group as the two proceedings were initiated on the basis of the same procedural document, covered the same period of investigation and in the complaint the complainant treated Fang Da group and Rainbow group together for all practical purposes.
Skupina Rainbow je tudi zahtevala, da mora umik pritožbe pomeniti tudi ustavitev sedanje preiskave v zvezi s skupino Rainbow, ker oba postopka, začeta na podlagi istega postopkovnega dokumenta, zajemata isto obdobje preiskave in ker je v pritožbi vložnik zaradi praktičnih razlogov obravnaval skupino Fang Da in skupino Rainbow skupaj.
Secondly, it claimed that despite the investigation against Fang Da group being initiated under Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the investigation concerning imports of the Fang Da group and the interim review concerning the imports of Rainbow group are legally and for all practical purposes in essence the same proceeding.
Drugič, trdila je, da sta ne glede na preiskavo v zvezi s skupino Fang Da, začeto v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredbe, preiskava v zvezi z uvozom s strani skupine Fang Da in vmesni pregled v zvezi z uvozom s strani skupine Rainbow pravno gledano in v vseh praktičnih primerih v bistvu en sam postopek.
Finally it stated that having created the distinction between proceedings and investigations, Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation in effect means that even though Fang Da group was subject to a zero duty following the original investigation, it remained subject to the proceeding.
Nazadnje je navedla, da z razločevanjem med postopki in preiskavami člen 9(3) osnovne uredbe dejansko navaja, da je skupina Fang Da ostala v postopku, čeprav je zanjo veljala nična dajatev iz prvotne preiskave.
For this reason, the withdrawal of the complaint concerning the imports by the Fang Da group should thus in view of the Rainbow group concerned result in the termination of the current review as well.
Zato mora umik pritožbe v zvezi z uvozom s strani skupine Fang Da prav tako pomeniti ustavitev sedanjega pregleda v zvezi z zadevno skupino Rainbow.
It should be noted in this respect that the document presented by the complainant constituted both the complaint for the anti-dumping investigation on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation and the request for this interim review on the basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je dokument, ki ga je predložil vložnik, navajal tako pritožbo za protidampinško preiskavo na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe kot zahtevek za ta vmesni pregled na osnovi člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
It also presented sufficient evidence to justify initiating both proceedings individually.
Prav tako je navajal zadostne dokaze, ki so upravičevali začetek dveh ločenih postopkov.
Indeed, the Commission has initiated the Article 5 investigation and the interim review in two separate notices of initiation.
Komisija je dejansko začela preiskavo v skladu s členom 5 in vmesni pregled z dvema ločenima obvestiloma o začetku.
Thus the anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation and the interim review based on Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation are two different proceedings.
Zato sta protidampinška preiskava, ki temelji na členu 5 osnovne uredbe, in vmesni pregled, ki temelji na členu 11(3) osnovne uredbe, dva različna postopka.
Rainbow group presented further arguments speculating on the possible reasons for the withdrawal of the complaint.
Skupina Rainbow je nadalje predložila argumente, ki naj bi upravičevali morebitne razloge za umik pritožbe.
As these arguments are hypothetical and irrelevant, they cannot be addressed and are thus rejected.
Ker so ti argumenti hipotetični in neumestni, se jih ne obravnava in se jih zavrne.
Finally, Rainbow group stated that the Commission has manifestly violated its rights to have 10 days to comment on the final disclosure as a non-confidential version of the withdrawal letter was disclosed to it seven days before the deadline to submit comments.
Nazadnje je skupina Rainbow navedla, da je Komisija očitno kršila njene pravice do desetih dni za pripombe na končno razkritje, ker ji je bila nezaupna različica pisma o umiku razkrita 7 dni pred rokom za predložitev pripomb.
As explained in recital 70, the Article 5 investigation in the framework of which Rainbow group received an information letter about the withdrawal of the complaint is a separate proceeding from the current review.
Kot je bilo razloženo v uvodni izjavi 70, je preiskava v skladu s členom 5, v okviru katere je skupina Rainbow prejela obvestilo o umiku pritožbe, postopek, ki je ločen od sedanjega pregleda.
Rainbow group was an interested party in the Article 5 review and only for this reason was it notified of the withdrawal of the complaint.
Skupina Rainbow je bila zainteresirana stran v pregledu v skladu s členom 5 in ravno zaradi tega je bila obveščena o umiku pritožbe.
This notification letter was not part of the final disclosure in the current review.
To obvestilo ni bilo del obvestila o končnem razkritju v sedanjem pregledu.
The Rainbow group had 30 days to comment on the final disclosure in the current proceeding.
Skupina Rainbow je imela na voljo 30 dni za pripombe o končnem razkritju v sedanjem postopku.
Therefore its right to have sufficient time to comment was not violated.
Zato pravica do zadostnega časa za pripombe ni bila kršena.
To sum up, the comments received were not such as to change the above conclusion,
Če povzamemo, niso bile predložene nobene pripombe, zaradi katerih bi se zgornji sklep spremenil –
The table in Article 1(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 is hereby amended by replacing the following:
Tabela iz člena 1(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 492/2010 se spremeni, tako da se vnos:
Rate of duty (EUR per kilogramme)
Stopnja dajatve (EUR na kilogram) Dodatna oznaka TARIC
TARIC additional code
„Ljudska republika Kitajska
‘The People’s Republic of China
Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Shanglilang, Cha Shan Industrial Area, Buji Town, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, Ljudska republika Kitajska; Golden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., No.
with the following:
nadomesti z naslednjim:
Golden Time Enterprise (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, Shanglilang, Cha Shan Industrial Area, Buji Town, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China; Golden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd, No 90-168, Fangshui Road, Chemical Industry Zone, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China
90-168, Fangshui Road, Chemical Industry Zone, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, Ljudska republika Kitajska
OJ L 140, 8.6.2010, p. 2.
UL L 140, 8.6.2010, str. 2.
OJ C 50, 17.2.2011, p. 6.
UL C 50, 17.2.2011, str. 6.
Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd v Council, Case T-498/04, 2009 ECR II-1969, at paragraph 92.
Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd proti Svetu, Zadeva T-498/04, 2009 ECR II – 1969, odstavek 92.
See Implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2010 (OJ L 140, 8.6.2010, p. 2).
Glej Uredbo (EU) št. 492/2010 (UL L 140, 8.6.2010, str. 2).
OJ L 22, 27.1.2000, p. 1, recitals 134 and 135.
UL L 22, 27.1.2000, str. 1., uvodni izjavi 134 in 135.
OJ L 294, 17.9.2004, p. 3.
UL L 294, 17.9.2004, str. 3.
OJ L 264, 29.9.1998, p. 1.
UL L 264, 29.9.1998, str. 1.
(As the Rainbow group now consists of two production companies (one being GT Enterprise), one raw material supplier, one company previously involved with the product concerned, but now dormant, and a trader in Hong Kong, the review encompassed the activities of the full group). The Commission also sent questionnaires to producers in Indonesia.
(Ker je skupina Rainbow sestavljena iz dveh proizvodnih družb (ena je GT Enterprise), enega dobavitelja surovin, ene družbe, zdaj v mirujočem stanju, vključene v proizvodnjo ali prodajo zadevnega izdelka, in enega trgovca v Hongkongu, je pregled zajel dejavnosti celotne skupine.) Komisija je vprašalnike poslala tudi proizvajalcem v Indoneziji.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 399/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 399/2012
It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [2].
Primerno je določiti, da se lahko imetnik v skladu s členom 12(6) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti [2] še tri mesece sklicuje na zavezujoče tarifne informacije, ki jih izdajo carinski organi držav članic v zvezi z uvrstitvijo blaga v kombinirano nomenklaturo in niso v skladu s to uredbo.
Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
Na podlagi člena 12(6) Uredbe (EGS) št. 2913/92 se je še tri mesece mogoče sklicevati na zavezujoče tarifne informacije, ki jih izdajo carinski organi držav članic in niso v skladu s to uredbo.
An unassembled article, (so-called "safety net for trampoline") comprising:
Nesestavljeni izdelek (tako imenovana „varnostna mreža za trampolin“), ki zajema:
a net with 6 snap closures,
mrežo s 6 zaskočnimi zapirali,
6 upper metal bars with cellular plastic covering,
6 zgornjih kovinskih palic s prevleko iz celičaste plastične mase,
6 lower metal bars with cellular plastic covering and welded mounting brackets,
6 spodnjih kovinskih palic s prevleko iz celičaste plastične mase in varjenimi pritrdilnimi sponkami,
12 rubber bands with hooks,
12 gumijastih trakov s kavlji,
12 screws with locking nuts.
12 vijakov z varnostnimi maticami.
Each upper bar is to be fitted to the lower bar which is then fastened to the legs of the trampoline using the screws and locking nuts.
Vsaka zgornja palica se pritrdi na spodnjo palico, ki se nato pritrdi na noge trampolina s pomočjo vijakov in varnostnih matic.
The net is sewn into the shape of a cylinder and it comes in a size to fit a specific trampoline.
Mreža je zašita v obliki cilindra in je v velikosti, ki ustreza določenemu trampolinu.
The net has an entrance opening that can be closed by a zipper.
Mreža ima vhodno odprtino, ki se lahko zapre z zadrgo.
The snap closures on the upper part of the net are to be fastened to the top end of the metal bars.
Zaskočna zapirala na zgornjem delu mreže se pritrdijo na zgornji konec kovinskih palic.
The rubber bands with hooks are used to fasten the bottom of the net to the frame of the trampoline.
Gumijasti trakovi s kavlji se uporabljajo za pritrditev spodnjega dela mreže na okvir trampolina.
Classification is determined by General Rules 1, 2 (a) and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, Note 1 (t) to Section XI, Note 3 to Chapter 95 and by the wording of CN codes 9506, 950691 and 95069190.
Uvrstitev opredeljujejo splošna pravila 1, 2(a) in 6 za razlago kombinirane nomenklature, opomba 1(t) k oddelku XI, opomba 3 k poglavju 95 ter besedilo oznak KN 9506, 950691 in 95069190.
Given its shape and characteristics, in particular the fact that it is ready to be installed onto a specific trampoline due to the presence of the metal bars, screws, nuts, snap closures and rubber bands with hooks, the safety net is suitable for use solely with the appropriate trampoline (see Note 3 to Chapter 95).
Varnostna mreža je zaradi oblike in značilnosti, zlasti dejstva, da je pripravljena za namestitev na določen trampolin zaradi kovinskih palic, vijakov, matic, zaskočnih zapiral in gumijastih trakov s kavlji, primerna za uporabo le z ustreznim trampolinom (glej opombo 3 k poglavju 95).
The safety net is therefore to be considered as an accessory to an article for general physical exercise of heading 9506.
Varnostna mreža se zato šteje kot dodatek k izdelku za splošno fizično počutje iz tarifne številke 9506.
Classification under heading 5608 as other made up nets is excluded, as articles of Chapter 95 are excluded from Section XI (see Note 1 (t) to Section XI).
Uvrstitev pod tarifno številko 5608 kot druge zagotovljene mreže je izključena, ker so izdelki iz poglavja 95 izključeni iz oddelka XI (glej opombo 1(t) k oddelku XI).
The safety net for trampoline is therefore to be classified under CN code 95069190 as other articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics.
Zato je treba varnostno mrežo za trampolin uvrstiti pod oznako KN 95069190 kot drugi izdelki in oprema za telovadbo, fizične vaje ali atletiko.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 400/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 400/2012
of 7 May 2012
z dne 7 maja 2012
An article having the shape of an almost square, stylised elephant, measuring approximately 32 × 48 × 24 cm, consisting of two halves that are made of moulded, rigid plastic.
Izdelek v obliki skoraj kvadratnega, stiliziranega slona, ki meri približno 32 × 48 × 24 cm, sestavljen iz dveh polovic, izdelanih iz lite, toge plastike.
It has four wheels and a removable shoulder strap that can also be used to pull the article along.
Ima štiri kolesa in snemljiv naramni jermen, ki se lahko uporablja tudi za vleko izdelka.
The two halves are held together by an integral hinged seam across the bottom and by two security snap closures at its opposite ends, which stop the article from opening immediately all the way.
Polovici sta na spodnjem delu povezani s šarnirjem, na nasprotnih koncih pa z dvema varnostnima zaponkama, ki preprečujeta, da bi se izdelek takoj odprl v celoti.
The hinges allow the two halves of the article to lie flat on the ground when opened.
Zgibi omogočajo, da sta polovici odprtega izdelka položeni plosko na tla.
One half of the article is fitted with two textile straps forming an X when linked by a clip.
Ena polovica izdelka ima vgrajena dva jermena iz tekstila, ki tvorita X, kadar sta speta z zaponko.
It also has a small flat textile pocket attached on the inside.
Na notranji strani ima pritrjen tudi majhen ploski žep iz tekstila.
The other half of the article is fitted with a separation flap of textile material holding one flat pocket with a zip closure.
Druga polovica izdelka ima vgrajeno pregrado iz tekstilnega materiala z enim ploskim žepom na zadrgo.
The separation flap is fixed to the side of the article, where the hinges are, and can be attached to the opposite side of that half.
Pregrada je pritrjena na isto stran izdelka kot zgibi in se lahko pritrdi na nasprotno stran zadevne polovice.
(suitcase)
(kovček)
(See photographs nos. 660 A and B) [1]
(Glej fotografiji št. 660 A in B) [1]
Classification is determined by General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, Note 1(d) to Chapter 95, and the wording of CN codes 4202, 420212 and 42021250.
Uvrstitev opredeljujejo splošni pravili 1 in 6 za razlago kombinirane nomenklature, opomba 1(d) k 95. poglavju in besedilo oznak KN 4202, 420212 in 42021250.