natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hunstman also based its analysis on the assumption that the Judgment confirmed that there was no spare capacity in the USA during the RIP and that it was therefore unlikely that an increased amount of ethanolamines would be exported into the Union on that basis.
Tudi analiza družbe Huntsman je temeljila na predpostavki, da je sodba potrdila, da v ZDA v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom ni bilo neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti in da zato ni bilo verjetno, da bi se zaradi tega povečal izvoz etanolaminov v Unijo.
They claimed that it was therefore also not necessary to analyse other factors such as the impact of trade defence measures in third countries, the possible development of demand in the USA and in other markets or the downward pressure of prices.
Družba je trdila, da zato ni bilo treba analizirati drugih dejavnikov, na primer učinka ukrepov trgovinske zaščite v tretjih državah, morebitnega razvoja povpraševanja v ZDA in na drugih trgih ali pritiska po znižanju cen.
Moreover, Huntsman argued that, in the light of the Court’s finding of the lack of spare capacity in the USA during the RIP, it was no longer possible for the Commission to re-analyse the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and of injury and to conclude in the framework of this partial re-opening that there was a likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping.
Poleg tega je družba Huntsman trdila, da glede na ugotovitve Sodišča o tem, da v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom v ZDA ni bilo neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti, Komisija ni več mogla ponovno analizirati verjetnosti ponovitve dampinga in škode ali v okviru te delne obnove preiskave zaključiti, da se bo škodljivi damping verjetno ponovil.
Yet, were the Commission able to revisit the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and of injury, Huntsman considered that there would be no evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation would be met.
Če bi Komisija kljub temu lahko ponovno proučila verjetnost ponovitve dampinga in škode, po mnenju družbe Huntsman ne bi bilo dokazov, da so zahteve iz člena 11(2) osnovne uredbe izpolnjene.
As regards the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, Huntsman opined that, on the basis of the finding that during the RIP there was no dumping for Dow Chemical, the biggest exporter by far, there was no likelihood of recurrence of dumping on a country-wide basis after the RIP if the anti-dumping duties would be withdrawn.
Kar zadeva verjetnost ponovitve dampinga, je družba Huntsman menila, da na podlagi ugotovitve, da v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom družba Dow Chemical, ki je daleč največja izvoznica, ni izvajala dampinga, ponovitev dampinga na nacionalni ravni po izteku obdobja preiskave v zvezi s pregledom dajatev ni bila verjetna, tudi če bi odpravili protidampinške dajatve.
According to Huntsman, the recurrence of injury would be unlikely in view of the absence of unused production capacity which results in very little leeway for increasing exports to the Union after the RIP.
Po trditvah družbe Huntsman ni bilo verjetno, da bi se škoda ponovila, saj ni bilo neizkoriščenih proizvodnih zmogljivosti, kar pušča malo možnosti za povečanje izvoza v Unijo po izteku obdobja preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
Huntsman maintained that such conclusion is corroborated by the fact that, according to the SRI report [12], the expected growth of consumption in the USA does not differ significantly from that of the other markets.
Družba Huntsman je vztrajala pri tem, da tak sklep potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da se v skladu s poročilom SRI [12] pričakovana rast porabe v ZDA ne razlikuje občutno od rasti na drugih trgih.
Huntsman raised that if the Union industry would have suffered from any injury, this would have been attributed to the effects of the economic crisis and not to imports from the USA.
Družba Huntsman je trdila, da bi bilo morebitno škodo industriji Unije treba pripisati učinkom gospodarske krize, ne pa uvozu iz ZDA.
The mere exacerbation of the negative impact of the crisis through imports could not permit a finding of a likely recurrence of injury caused by the mentioned imports.
Zaradi samega poslabšanja negativnega učinka krize zaradi uvoza ne bi bilo mogoče zaključiti, da se bo zaradi tega uvoza škoda verjetno ponovila.
In respect of the alleged illegality of the reopening (recitals 17-18), it is recalled that in case C-458/98 P (the ‘IPS judgment’), the Court of Justice 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 obnove preiskave (uvodni izjavi 17 in 18) se opozarja, da je Sodišče v zadevi C-458/98 P („sodba IPS“) ugotovilo, da v primerih, ko je postopek sestavljen iz več upravnih korakov, razglasitev ničnosti enega od korakov ne pomeni, da je za ničnega razglašen celoten postopek.
The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding.
Protidampinški postopek je primer takega postopka v več korakih.
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 [13].
Zato razglasitev ničnosti uredbe o spremembi v delu, v katerem se nanaša na eno stran, ne pomeni, da je ničen celoten postopek, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe [13].
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) izvrševati sodbo.
The claim that the introduction of deadlines to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from extending the investigation beyond the 15-months statutory limit (recital 17 above) was also found to be unwarranted.
Tudi trditev, da Komisija zaradi uvedbe rokov za zaključek protidampinških preiskav ne more podaljšati preiskave prek zakonskega 15-mesečnega roka (uvodna izjava 17) je bila ugotovljena za neutemeljeno.
It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a Court judgment.
Šteje se, da ta rok ni relevanten za izvrševanje sodbe Sodišča.
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 mogoče treba sprejeti, na primer na podlagi ponovne sodne presoje.
The consequence of accepting such claim would make it impossible for the institutions to take account of the General Court’s findings (as Article 266 TFEU requires).
Če bi institucije sprejele to trditev, ne bi mogle upoštevati ugotovitev Splošnega sodišča (kot določa člen 266 PDEU).
Indeed, the General Court’s judgment will always be handed down at a time when the deadline for the investigation has expired.
Splošno sodišče bo vedno izreklo sodbo po izteku roka za preiskavo.
Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that, for example, a successful legal action brought by one party would be without any practical effect for that party if the expiry of the time limit to conclude the original investigation would not permit the implementation of a judgment of the General Court.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da bi kakršna koli druga razlaga pomenila na primer, da uspešna rešitev pravnega spora, ki ga sproži ena od strani, za navedeno stran ne bi imela praktičnega učinka, če iztek roka za zaključitev prvotne preiskave ne bi omogočil izvrševanja sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
This would be at odds with the principle that all parties should have the right to effective judicial review.
To bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom, da bi vse strani morale imeti pravico do učinkovite ponovne sodne presoje.
Concerning the claim that the Commission would not be able to legally remedy the errors of assessment found to be contained in the contested Regulation and that the only mean to implement the judgment is to repeal the existing measures (recital 18 above), the following should be noted.
Kar zadeva trditev, da Komisija ne bi mogla zakonito odpraviti napak v presoji, ki so bile odkrite v izpodbijani uredbi, in da je edini način za izvrševanje sodbe preklic obstoječih ukrepov (uvodna izjava 18), je treba opozoriti na naslednje:
The Court has already established that the annulment of a Regulation 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 judgment — as was held in the IPS judgment.
Sodišče je že ugotovilo, da razveljavitev uredbe pomeni tudi možnost popravka uredbe o spremembi v vidikih, zaradi katerih je bila uredba razveljavljena, pri čemer bi neizpodbijani deli, na katere se sodba ne nanaša, ostali nespremenjeni, kot navaja sodba IPS.
The institutions are therefore required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part [14].
Institucije morajo zato upoštevati ne le izrek sodbe, pač pa tudi njeno obrazložitev, ki predstavlja njeno bistveno podlago, kolikor je potrebna za določitev točnega pomena izreka sodbe [14].
The procedure for replacing an illegal measure may thus be resumed [15].
Postopek za nadomestitev nezakonitega ukrepa se tako lahko ponovno začne [15].
Hence, this claim is also considered to be unwarranted.
Tako je tudi navedena trditev neutemeljena.
The General Court, as also noted by Stepan and Hunstman (see recital 19), found that, during the investigation that resulted in the adoption of the third expiry review Regulation, the institutions could not have come to the conclusion that dumping had continued during the RIP, nor that there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping.
Kot ugotavljata družbi Stepan in Huntsman (glej uvodno izjavo 19), je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da institucije med preiskavo, ki je vodila do sprejetja uredbe o tretjem pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov, niso mogle sklepati, da se je damping v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom nadaljeval, niti da se bo verjetno nadaljeval.
The vast majority of imports from the USA namely, as the Court noted, more than 85 % from Dow Chemical, had entered the Union at non-dumped prices.
Velika večina uvoza iz ZDA namreč po navedbah Sodišča vstopi v Unijo po nedampinških cenah, od tega 85 % uvoza predstavlja družba Dow Chemical.
Moreover, that situation should have resulted in a finding that the weighted average margin for imports of the product at issue originating in the USA was negative.
Poleg tega bi takšen položaj moral voditi do zaključka, da je bila tehtana povprečna stopnja za uvoz zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz ZDA negativna.
The Court concluded that the institutions were therefore obliged to demonstrate that there was a likelihood of a recurrence of dumping [16].
Sodišče je zaključilo, da so bile institucije zato pravno obvezane dokazati, da bi se damping verjetno ponovil [16].
The analysis of the likelihood of the recurrence of dumping is in this case, as all interested parties recognise explicitly or implicitly, linked to the calculation of the spare production capacity in the USA.
Kot se strinjajo vse zainteresirane strani, je analiza verjetnosti ponovitve dampinga v tem primeru eksplicitno ali implicitno povezana z izračunom neizkoriščenih proizvodnih zmogljivosti v ZDA.
Some interested parties contend that the General Court confirmed that there was no significant spare capacity in the USA during the RIP.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani trdijo, da je Splošno sodišče potrdilo, da v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom v ZDA ni bilo veliko neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti.
The Court found that the calculation methodology resulting in a spare production capacity of ethanolamines of 60000 tonnes during the RIP was confusing and that the resulting number of 60000 tonnes was in conflict with the evidence relied on in the case [17].
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bila metodologija, po kateri so bile neizkoriščene proizvodne zmogljivosti etanolaminov v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom izračunane na 60000 ton, nejasna in da rezultat 60000 ton ni bil skladen z dokazi v obravnavani zadevi [17].
As mentioned in recital 15, the Union industry has submitted that, based on PCI data, there would be a country-wide spare capacity in 2008 exceeding 60000 tonnes.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, je industrija Unije trdila, da so na podlagi podatkov družbe PCI neizkoriščene zmogljivosti na nacionalni ravni leta 2008 znašale 60000 ton.
It is however noted that, in the calculation submitted by the Union industry, the total US production capacity had been used, i.e. no downwards adjustment to 90 % thereof had been done.
Vseeno je treba omeniti, da so bile v izračunu, ki ga je predložila industrija Unije, uporabljene celotne proizvodne zmogljivosti v ZDA, tj. niso bile zaokrožene navzdol na 90 %.
As regards the allegations regarding the calculation of the spare capacity during the RIP, it is noted that two exporting producers cooperated with the third expiry review investigation.
Kar zadeva trditve o izračunu neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom, je treba opozoriti, da sta v preiskavi v zvezi s tretjim pregledom zaradi izteka ukrepov sodelovala dva proizvajalca izvoznika.
During that investigation, it was established that INEOS Oxide LLC (‘INEOS’) did not have any spare capacity during the RIP, whereas Dow Chemical had some.
Med navedeno preiskavo je bilo ugotovljeno, da družba INEOS Oxide LLC („družba INEOS“) v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom za razliko od družbe Dow Chemical ni imela neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti.
The verified information shows that Dow Chemical did not use its spare capacity to engage in low-price exports during the RIP although it could have done so given the low level of the measures when expressed at an ad valorem equivalent.
Na podlagi preverjenih informacij je razvidno, da družba Dow Chemical neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom ni uporabljala za izvoz po nizkih cenah, čeprav bi to lahko storila glede na raven ukrepov, izraženih ad valorem.
Moreover, the cooperating companies, Dow Chemical and INEOS, represented during the RIP together 91,6 % of exports from the US into the Union.
Poleg tega sta sodelujoči družbi, Dow Chemical in INEOS, v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom skupaj predstavljali 91,6 % izvoza iz ZDA v Unijo.
The country-wide dumping margin during the RIP was de minimis and imports from non-cooperating companies represented less than 1 % of the Union market.
Stopnja dampinga na nacionalni ravni je bila v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom zanemarljiva, uvoz iz nesodelujočih družb pa je predstavljal manj kot 1 % trga Unije.
For confidentiality reasons the above figures have either been given in the form of ranges or are not exact.
Zaradi zaupnosti so navedeni razponi vrednosti ali podatki niso točni.
Those circumstances are also acknowledged by the Union industry.
Te okoliščine potrjuje tudi industrija Unije.
However, it should be noted that as mentioned in recitals 30 and 31, given the low level of the measures and the lack of spare capacity from INEOS as well as the absence of dumping from Dow Chemical, there is no indication that the repeal of the measure would be likely to change the situation.
Vendar pa je treba poudariti, da glede na nizko stopnjo ukrepov, dejstvo, da družba INEOS ni imela neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti, in dejstvo, da družba Dow Chemical ni izvajala dampinga, ni mogoče trditi, da bi se z razveljavitvijo ukrepa stanje spremenilo, kot je navedeno tudi v uvodnih izjavah 30 in 31.
An exporting producer commented that the third expiry review should not have concluded with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 imposing measures.
Eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov je menil, da na podlagi preiskave v zvezi s tretjim pregledom z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 54/2010 ne bi smeli biti uvedeni ukrepi.
The exporting producer requested that measures be repealed with retroactive effect so that all duties paid since the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 be reimbursed to all importers who duly paid them.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval razveljavitev ukrepov z retroaktivnim učinkom, tako da bi se vse dajatve, ki so jih uvozniki plačali od datuma začetka veljavnosti Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 54/2010, povrnile.
That claim is rejected, as exporting producers other than Dow Chemical could also have brought an action for annulment against the Regulation — which was annulled only in so far as it concerned the applicant, Dow Chemical.
Ta zahteva se zavrne, saj bi lahko ničnostno tožbo v zvezi z Uredbo, ki je bila razveljavljena le v delu, v katerem se nanaša na vložnika, družbo Dow Chemical, vložili tudi drugi proizvajalci, ne le družba Dow Chemical.
Therefore, according to the principle of legal certainty and following the case-law of the Court [18], the Regulation became definitive as regards the other exporting producers.
Zato se v skladu z načelom pravne varnosti in na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča [18] Uredba uporablja za vse ostale proizvajalce izvoznike.
Taking account of the comments made by parties and the analysis thereof, it was concluded that the implementation of the Judgment implies that during the investigation that resulted in the adoption of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010, the institutions could not have come to the conclusion that dumping had continued during the RIP, nor that there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping.
Ob upoštevanju pripomb strani in njihove analize je bilo sklenjeno, da izvrševanje sodbe pomeni, da med preiskavo, ki je vodila do sprejetja Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 54/2010, institucije niso mogle zaključiti, da se je damping v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom nadaljeval ali da je bilo verjetno, da se bo nadaljeval.
Moreover, the institutions should also have concluded that there was no likelihood of recurrence of dumping.
Poleg tega bi morale institucije zaključiti tudi, da ponovitev dampinga ni bila verjetna.
On the basis of the above, the anti-dumping duty on ethanolamines should not have been reintroduced.
Na podlagi zgornjih trditev se protidampinške dajatve na etanolamine ne bi smelo ponovno uvesti.
With respect to Dow Chemical, it should be recalled that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 has already been annulled in so far as Dow Chemical is concerned by the judgment of the General Court in case T-158/10.
Kar zadeva družbo Dow Chemical, je treba ponovno opozoriti, da je bila Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 54/2010 s sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-158/10 že razveljavljena v delu, v katerem se nanaša na navedeno družbo.
Therefore, for the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that, with regard to imports of ethanolamines from Dow Chemical, the anti-dumping duties are no longer in force as of the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 (23 January 2010).
Zato je treba v zvezi z uvozom etanolaminov družbe Dow Chemical zaradi jasnosti poudariti, da se protidampinške dajatve ne uporabljajo več od datuma sprejetja Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 54/2010 (23. januarja 2010).
FOURTH EXPIRY REVIEW
ČETRTI PREGLED ZARADI IZTEKA UKREPOV
In light of the above, and recital 35 in particular, it is considered that the fourth expiry review should be terminated without reimposing a duty.
Glede na navedeno, zlasti uvodno izjavo 35, velja, da bi bilo treba četrti pregled zaradi izteka ukrepov zaključiti, ne da bi ponovno uvedli dajatev.
With regard to Dow Chemical, the fourth expiry review was deprived of its object by the Judgment and no legal basis exists for the collection of anti-dumping duties on imports from Dow Chemical as of 23 January 2010.
Kar zadeva družbo Dow Chemical, je bil četrti pregled zaradi izteka ukrepov brezpredmeten na podlagi sodbe, poleg tega pa od 23. januarja 2010 ni pravne podlage za zaračunavanje protidampinških dajatev na uvoz navedene družbe.
PARTIAL INTERIM REVIEW
DELNI VMESNI PREGLED
Taking account of the findings summarised in recital 35 above, it is considered that the review should be terminated, since the basis for the very existence of the measures, i.e., a finding of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping, is missing.
Ob upoštevanju ugotovitev, ki so povzete v uvodni izjavi 35, se šteje, da bi bilo treba pregled zaključiti, saj ukrepi nimajo podlage, tj. ni verjetno, da bi se škodljivi damping nadaljeval ali ponovno pojavil.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
PREJETE PRIPOMBE
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be terminated.
Vse strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravalo priporočiti razveljavitev obstoječih ukrepov.
They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to that disclosure.
Odobreno jim je bilo tudi obdobje, v katerem so lahko predložile svoja stališča v zvezi s tem razkritjem.
Their comments were duly considered, but were not such as to change the conclusions.
Njihove pripombe so bile upoštevane, vendar se zaradi njih zaključek ne spremeni.
It follows from the above that the partial reopening investigation should be terminated and that the anti-dumping measures on imports of ethanolamines originating in the USA should be repealed.
Iz navedenega sledi, da bi bilo treba delno obnovo preiskave zaključiti in razveljaviti protidampinške ukrepe na uvoz etanolaminov s poreklom iz ZDA.
With respect to imports of ethanolamines from Dow Chemical, since Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 had already been annulled in so far as Dow Chemical is concerned, the measures are not in force as of the date of entry into force of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 (23 January 2010).
Ker je bila Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 54/2010 razveljavljena v delu, v katerem se nanaša na uvoz etanolaminov družbe Dow Chemical, se zanjo ukrepi ne uporabljajo od datuma začetka veljavnosti Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 54/2010 (23. januar 2010).
The fourth expiry investigation concerning anti-dumping duties in force on imports of ethanolamines originating in the USA should also be terminated without reimposing a duty.
Tudi četrto preiskavo v zvezi z iztekom ukrepov glede veljavnih protidampinških dajatev na uvoz etanolaminov s poreklom iz ZDA bi bilo treba zaključiti brez ponovne uvedbe dajatve.
With respect to imports from Dow Chemical, that expiry review has been deprived of its object.
Kar zadeva uvoz družbe Dow Chemical je ta pregled zaradi izteka ukrepov brezpredmeten.
The partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping should be terminated on the basis of the repeal of the existing measures,
Delni vmesni pregled, omejen na preiskavo dampinga, bi bilo treba zaradi preklica obstoječih ukrepov zaključiti –
The partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ethanolamines currently falling within CN codes ex29221100 (monoethanolamine) (TARIC code 2922110010), ex29221200 (diethanolamine) (TARIC code 2922120010) and 29221310 (triethanolamine), originating in the United States of America is hereby terminated without reimposing the duties, and measures are repealed.
Delna obnova protidampinške preiskave v zvezi z uvozom etanolaminov, ki se trenutno uvrščajo pod oznake KN ex29221100 (monoetanolamin) (oznaka TARIC 2922110010), ex29221200 (dietanolamin) (oznaka TARIC 2922120010) in 29221310 (trietanolamin), s poreklom iz Združenih držav Amerike se zaključi brez ponovne uvedbe protidampinške dajatve, veljavni ukrepi pa se razveljavijo.