natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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(4) 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 („osnovna uredba“) [1] in zlasti člena 9(4) Uredbe,
In August 2010, the Commission, by Notice of Initiation (NOI) published on 13 August 2010 [2], initiated a proceeding with regard to imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends (‘FOH’) originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (‘the countries concerned’).
Komisija je avgusta 2010 z obvestilom o začetku, objavljenim 13. avgusta 2010 [2], začela postopek v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih maščobnih alkoholov in njihovih mešanic s poreklom iz Indije, Indonezije in Malezije („zadevne države“).
In May 2011, by Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 [3] (‘the provisional Regulation’), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of FOH originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and in November 2011 a definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed on the same imports by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 [4] (‘the definitive Regulation’).
Komisija je maja 2011 z Uredbo (EU) št. 446/2011 [3] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih maščobnih alkoholov in njihovih mešanic s poreklom iz Indije, Indonezije in Malezije, novembra 2011 pa je bila z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 1138/2011 [4] („dokončna uredba“) na uvoz istih izdelkov uvedena dokončna protidampinška dajatev.
On 21 January 2012, PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, an Indonesian exporting producer of FOH, Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Singapore) Pte.
Indonezijski proizvajalec izvoznik nekaterih maščobnih alkoholov in njihovih mešanic PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, družba Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Singapore) Pte.
Ltd and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (herein jointly referred to as ‘Ecogreen’) lodged an application (Case T-28/12) before the General Court for the annulment of the definitive Regulation as far as the anti-dumping duty with regard to Ecogreen was concerned.
Ltd in družba Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj poimenovani: skupina Ecogreen) so 21. januarja 2012 vložili tožbo (zadeva T-28/12) pri Splošnem sodišču, da dokončno uredbo razglasi za nično v delu, ki se nanaša na protidampinško dajatev za skupino Ecogreen.
Ecogreen contested the adjustment made on the basis of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation to its export price for the purpose of comparing that export price with the company’s normal value.
Skupina Ecogreen je izpodbijala prilagoditev njene izvozne cene na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, ki je bila izvedena za primerjavo navedene izvozne cene z normalno vrednostjo družbe.
On 16 February 2012, the Court of Justice rendered its judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P Council of the European Union and European Commission v Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT).
Sodišče je 16. februarja 2012 izreklo sodbo v združenih zadevah C-191/09 P in C-200/09 P, Svet Evropske unije in Evropska komisija proti Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) in Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT).
The Court of Justice rejected the appeals and cross-appeals of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT) v Council of the European Union.
Sodišče je zavrnilo pritožbe in nasprotne pritožbe zoper sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) in Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT) proti Svetu Evropske unije.
The General Court had annulled Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 [5] with regard to Interpipe NTRP VAT, inter alia, on the grounds of a manifest error of assessment in making the adjustment based on Article 2(10)(i), and on other grounds with regard to Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT.
Prav tako je Splošno sodišče razveljavilo člen 1 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 954/2006 [5] v zvezi z družbo Interpipe NTRP VAT, med drugim zaradi očitne napake pri presoji prilagoditve, izvedene v skladu s členom 2(10)(i), in v zvezi z družbo Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT iz drugih razlogov.
Given that the factual circumstances for Ecogreen are similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT in respect of the adjustment made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, in particular the following factors in combination: volume of direct sales to third countries of less than 8 % (1-5 %) of all export sales; existence of common ownership/control of the trader and the exporting producer; the nature of functions of the trader and the exporting producer, it is considered appropriate to recalculate the dumping margin of Ecogreen without making an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) and to amend the definitive Regulation accordingly.
Ker so dejanske okoliščine v zvezi s prilagoditvijo, izvedeno v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, skupine Ecogreen podobne tistim družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT, to velja zlasti za naslednje dejavnike v kombinaciji: obseg neposredne prodaje tretjim državam je manj kot 8 % (1–5 %) celotnega izvoza; obstoj skupnega lastništva/nadzor trgovca in proizvajalca izvoznika; vrsto funkcije trgovca in proizvajalca izvoznika, se je štelo za primerno, da se ponovno izračuna stopnja dampinga skupine Ecogreen brez prilagoditve, izvedene v skladu s členom 2(10)(i), in ustrezno spremeni dokončna uredba.
A. NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS BASED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT
A. NOVA OCENA UGOTOVITEV NA PODLAGI SODBE SPLOŠNEGA SODIŠČA
On the basis of eliminating the adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), the dumping margin established for Ecogreen, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union frontier, duty unpaid, is less than 2 % and is therefore considered de minimis in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi odprave prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) je stopnja dampinga, določena za skupino Ecogreen, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve, manj kot 2-odstotna, in se torej šteje za de minimis v skladu s členom 9(3) osnovne uredbe.
In the light of this, the investigation should be terminated in respect of Ecogreen without the imposition of measures.
Zaradi tega bi bilo treba preiskavo v zvezi s skupino Ecogreen zaključiti brez uvedbe ukrepov.
The dumping margin for all companies in Indonesia, other than for the other exporting producer with an individual margin, which was based on that of the cooperating Indonesian exporting producer with the highest dumping margin, should be revised to take account of the recalculated dumping margin of Ecogreen.
Stopnjo dampinga za vse družbe v Indoneziji, razen za drugega proizvajalca izvoznika z individualno stopnjo, ki je temeljila na stopnji za sodelujočega indonezijskega proizvajalca izvoznika z najvišjo stopnjo dampinga, bi bilo treba prilagoditi, da se upošteva ponovno izračunana stopnja dampinga za skupino Ecogreen.
B. DISCLOSURES
B. RAZKRITJA
The interested parties concerned were informed of the proposal to revise the rates of anti-dumping duty in two disclosures, one sent on 13 June 2012 and a second disclosure sent on 25 September 2012.
Zadevne zainteresirane strani so bile obveščene o predlogu za revizijo protidampinških stopenj dajatev v dveh razkritjih, poslanih 13. junija 2012 in 25. septembra 2012.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to each disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
V skladu z določbami osnovne uredbe je bilo vsem zainteresiranim stranem odobreno obdobje, v katerem so lahko navedle stališča v zvezi z obema razkritjema.
Comments on the disclosure sent on 13 June 2012 were received from P.T.
Pripombe na razkritje z dne 13. junija 2012 je posredoval drugi proizvajalec izvoznik iz Indonezije P.T.
Musim Mas (PTMM), the second exporting producer in Indonesia, from one producer in the Union, and from one exporting producer in Malaysia.
Musim Mas (PTMM), en proizvajalec iz Unije in en proizvajalec izvoznik iz Malezije.
PTMM also asked for an opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and was granted such a hearing.
Družba PTMM je prav tako zahtevala, da jo zaslišijo službe Komisije, kar ji je bilo odobreno.
PTMM, for which an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) had also been made, argued that the Court judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P should result in a recalculation of its dumping margin, similar to that made for Ecogreen, without an adjustment being made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), as once a single economic entity made up of the exporting producer and the trader is established, no adjustments under Article 2(10)(i) can be made.
Družba PTMM, za katero je bila prav tako izvedena prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(10)(i), je trdila, da bi bilo treba na podlagi sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-191/09 P in C-200/09 P ponovno izračunati stopnje dampinga za to družbo, podobno kot za skupino Ecogreen, brez prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i), saj z ugotovitvijo enotnega gospodarskega subjekta, ki ga sestavljata proizvajalec izvoznik in trgovec, ni mogoče izvesti prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i).
The company also claimed that the burden of proving that an adjustment should be made rests with the Institutions, and that they have not proved it in the case of PTMM.
Družba je prav tako trdila, da je breme dokazovanja potrebe po izvajanju prilagoditev na strani institucij, ki pa te v primeru družbe PTMM niso dokazale.
It further alleged that its circumstances were identical to those of Ecogreen, and any difference in treatment would therefore amount to discrimination.
Nadalje je trdila, da so okoliščine enake tistim okoliščinam skupine Ecogreen in da bi zato vsaka morebitna razlika v obravnavanju pomenila diskriminacijo.
As regards the comments made by PTMM, it should be noted that it does not follow from the Court judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P that as soon as the existence of a single economic entity is established no adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation can be made.
Kar zadeva pripombe družbe PTMM bi bilo treba opozoriti, da iz sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-191/09 P in C-200/09 P ne izhaja, da sama ugotovitev obstoja enotnega gospodarskega subjekta nemudoma izključuje možnost izvajanja prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i).
The adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) is considered to be justified in the case of PTMM as has been explained in the definitive regulation, in communication with the company and below.
Prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) se v primeru družbe PTMM šteje za utemeljeno, kot je bilo že pojasnjeno v dokončni uredbi, v korespondenci z družbo in je obrazloženo v nadaljevanju.
There are a number of differences in the circumstances of the two Indonesian exporting producers, in particular the following in combination: the level of direct export sales made by the producer; the significance of the trader’s activities and functions concerning products sourced from non-related companies; the existence of a contract between the trader and producer, which provided that the trader was to receive a commission for the export sales.
Obstaja veliko razlik med okoliščinami dveh indonezijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, to velja zlasti za kombinacijo naslednjih dejavnikov: raven neposrednega izvoza proizvajalca; pomen dejavnosti in funkcij trgovca v zvezi s proizvodi, ki jih dobavlja od nepovezanih družb; obstoj pogodbe med trgovcem in proizvajalcem, ki je določala, da trgovec dobi provizijo za izvoz.
Given the difference in the circumstances of the two companies the claim of discrimination has to be rejected.
Zaradi razlike med okoliščinami obeh družb je treba trditev o diskriminaciji zavrniti.
It is noted that PTMM also lodged an application (Case T-26/12) before the General Court for the annulment of the definitive Regulation as far as the anti-dumping duty with regard to PTMM was concerned.
Treba je omeniti, da je družba PTMM prav tako vložila tožbo (zadeva T-26/12) pri Splošnem sodišču za razveljavitev dokončne uredbe, kar zadeva protidampinško dajatev v zvezi z družbo PTMM.
One exporting producer in Malaysia argued that the recalculation of the margin for Ecogreen, without making an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), was not supported by the judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P or the facts therein.
En proizvajalec izvoznik iz Malezije je trdil, da sodba v združenih zadevah C-191/09 P in C-200/09 P ali dejstva, navedena v sodbi, ne podpirajo ponovnega izračuna za skupino Ecogreen, brez prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i).
It pointed out that the General Court, in Case T-249/06, had found a manifest error of assessment in applying Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in so far as the Council made an adjustment on the export price charged by Sepco in the context of transactions concerning pipes manufactured by Interpipe NTRP VAT, but not those manufactured by Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT.
Poudaril je, da je Splošno sodišče v zadevi T-249/06 ugotovilo očitno napako pri presoji pri uporabi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, in sicer v delu, v katerem je Svet izvedel prilagoditev izvozne cene, ki jo je uporabljala družba Sepco, v okviru transakcij, ki se nanašajo na cevi, ki jih proizvaja družba Interpipe NTRP VAT, vendar ne tudi na tiste, ki jih proizvaja družba Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT.
Ecogreen’s factual circumstances thus could not simultaneously be similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT and of Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT due to a difference in the situation of those two companies.
Dejanske okoliščine skupine Ecogreen tako ne bi mogle biti hkrati podobne okoliščinam družb Interpipe NTRP VAT in Niko Tube ZAT zaradi razlik med položajem obeh navedenih družb.
This argument is accepted.
Ta trditev se sprejme.
Indeed, Ecogreen’s situation is similar to that of Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Dejansko je položaj skupine Ecogreen podoben tistemu družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT.
This finding justifies the need for taking the appropriate steps to recalculate the dumping margin for Ecogreen without the Article 2(10)(i) adjustment.
Ta ugotovitev utemeljuje potrebo po sprejemanju ustreznih ukrepov za ponovni izračun stopnje dampinga za skupino Ecogreen brez prilagoditve iz člena 2(10)(i).
The exporting producer in Malaysia further argued that the situation of Ecogreen as described in the definitive Regulation is not even similar to that of Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Proizvajalec izvoznik iz Malezije je nadalje trdil, da položaj skupine Ecogreen, kakor je opisan v dokončni uredbi, prav tako ni podoben položaju družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Upon reassessing the precise factual circumstances of Ecogreen, it is however considered that these are sufficiently similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT as such control as found by the General Court for Interpipe NTRP VAT when assessing whether the company carrying out the sales activities is under the control of the exporting producer or whether there is common control has been found for Ecogreen and together with several other factors, as indicated in recital 4, leads to the conclusion that the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation should not have been made.
Po ponovni preučitvi natančnih dejanskih okoliščin skupine Ecogreen pa vendarle velja, da so dovolj podobne okoliščinam družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT, saj je bil enak nadzor, kot ga je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo v primeru družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT pri ocenjevanju, ali je družba, ki izvaja prodajne dejavnosti, pod nadzorom proizvajalca izvoznika ali če obstaja skupni nadzor, ugotovljen v primeru skupine Ecogreen, iz česar je skupaj z več drugimi dejavniki, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 4, mogoče sklepati, da se prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe ne bi smela izvesti.
The same exporting producer in Malaysia, as an alternative to its argument regarding the similarities between the situation of Ecogreen and the circumstances of Case T-249/06, argued that the disclosure sent on 13 June 2012 was insufficient and that additional disclosure should be made of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the recalculation for Ecogreen is justified.
Isti proizvajalec izvoznik iz Malezije je kot alternativno trditev glede podobnosti med položajem skupine Ecogreen in okoliščinami v zadevi T-249/06 navedel, da je bilo razkritje z dne 13. junija 2012 nezadostno ter da bi bilo potrebno dodatno razkritje bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je utemeljen ponovni izračun za skupino Ecogreen.
One producer in the Union also commented that both disclosures referred to in recital 8 were insufficient, and argued that it was deprived of its rights of defence.
En proizvajalec v Uniji je prav tako pripomnil, da sta bili obe razkritji iz uvodne izjave 8 nezadostni, in trdil, da so mu bile odvzete pravice do obrambe.
In this regard, it is recalled that certain details relating to specific companies which are confidential in nature cannot be disclosed to third parties.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da nekaterih podatkov, ki se nanašajo na posamezne družbe in so zaupne narave, ni mogoče razkriti tretjim osebam.
However, the nature of the factual circumstances of Ecogreen which are similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT, as indicated at recital 5, was disclosed to interested parties on 13 June and 25 September 2012, who were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to each disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Vendar so bile značilnosti dejanskih okoliščin skupine Ecogreen, ki so podobne tistim družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 5, 13. junija 2012 in 25. septembra 2012 razkrite zainteresiranim stranem, ki jim je bilo odobreno obdobje, v katerem so lahko predložile svoja stališča v zvezi z vsakim razkritjem v skladu z določbami osnovne uredbe.
In response to the second disclosure sent on 25 September 2012, the parties mainly reiterated their claims in their responses to the first disclosure of 13 June 2012.
Strani so v svoji odzivih na drugo razkritje z dne 25. septembra 2012 predvsem ponovile trditve iz svojih odzivov na prvo razkritje z dne 13. junija 2012.
PTMM has developed its comments based on its main claim that the existence of a Single Economic Entity (SEE) of PTMM and its trader excludes an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation claiming that the Institutions shift the SEE doctrine laid down by the Courts to a functional approach where an analysis of the functions of the related trader would be required.
Pripombe družbe PTMM so temeljile na njeni glavni trditvi, da obstoj enotnega gospodarskega subjekta, ki ga sestavljata družba PTMM in trgovec, izključuje prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe; v zvezi s tem menijo, da institucije uporabljajo načelo enotnega gospodarskega subjekta iz razlage sodstva za funkcionalen pristop, medtem ko bi dejansko bila zahtevana analiza funkcij povezanega trgovca.
It is noted that this issue turns on a point of law that is a subject matter of a pending case.
Opozoriti je treba, da to vprašanje zadeva pravno vprašanje, ki je predmet postopka, ki teče pred sodiščem.
Furthermore, PTMM claimed that the arguments in recital 12 above are not convincing and do not suffice to differentiate between the circumstances of Ecogreen and PTMM respectively.
Nadalje je družba PTMM trdila, da trditve iz uvodne izjave 12 zgoraj niso prepričljive in ne zadoščajo za razlikovanje med okoliščinami skupine Ecogreen in okoliščinami družbe PTMM.
In that regard it is sufficient to note that it is settled case-law that different treatment of companies that are not in an identical situation does not amount to discrimination [6].
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso različna obravnava družb, ki niso v enakem položaju, ne velja za diskriminacijo [6].
Against this background each individual case was assessed on its individual merits against the findings in the judgments of Case T-249/09 and joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P.
Na tej podlagi je bila za vsak primer izvedena presoja pomena primera glede na ugotovitve iz sodb v zadevi T-249/09 ter združenih zadevah C-191/09 P in C-200/09 P.
First argument: Level of direct export sales made by the producer.
Prva trditev: raven neposrednega izvoza proizvajalca.
PTMM submitted that it has no marketing and sales division and claimed that all the sales carried out directly by the producer in Indonesia (and not by the related trader) were only done so as to comply with legal requirements.
Družba PTMM je navedla, da nima enote za trženje in prodajo, in trdila, da je bila vsa prodaja, ki jo je neposredno izvajal proizvajalec v Indoneziji (in ne povezani trgovec), izvedena na ta način samo zaradi izpolnjevanja zakonskih zahtev.
The functions of marketing and sales were carried out by its trader in Singapore.
Trženje in prodajo je izvajal njen trgovec iz Singapurja.
For this reason, PTMM claimed that this argument does not justify the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation nor the distinction drawn between PTMM on the one hand and Interpipe NTRP VAT on the other.
Zaradi tega je družba PTMM trdila, da ta trditev ne upravičuje prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe niti razlikovanja med družbo PTMM in družbo Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation stipulates that a fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value at the same level of trade with due account taken of differences which affect price comparability.
Člen 2(10) osnovne uredbe določa, da je treba izvesti pravično primerjavo med izvozno ceno in normalno vrednostjo na isti ravni trgovanja, pri čemer se upoštevajo razlike, ki vplivajo na primerljivost cen.
Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance in the form of adjustments shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.
Kadar ugotovljena normalna vrednost in izvozna cena ne temeljita na taki primerljivi osnovi, se v vsakem primeru, odvisno od pomena, v obliki prilagoditev ustrezno upoštevajo razlike v dejavnikih, za katere se ugotovi in dokaže, da vplivajo na cene in s tem na primerljivost cen.
On this basis, and as explained in recital 38 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments for, inter alia, differences in commissions between export sales prices and domestic sales prices during the original investigations were considered warranted due to the differences in the sales channels between export sales to the European Union and domestic sales.
Na tej podlagi in kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 38 začasne uredbe, so izvedene prilagoditve za, med drugim, razlike v provizijah med izvoznimi prodajnimi cenami in domačimi prodajnimi cenami med prvotnimi preiskavami veljale za utemeljene zaradi razlik v prodajnih poteh med izvozom v Evropsko unijo in domačo prodajo.
The arguments put forward by PTMM do not contradict the first argument, namely that the level of direct export sales made by PTMM is higher than that of Interpipe NTRP VAT and that this fact distinguishes PTMM from Ecogreen.
Trditve družbe PTMM niso v nasprotju s prvo trditvijo, da je raven neposrednega izvoza družbe PTMM višja kot raven družbe Interpipe NTRP VAT, kar razlikuje družbo PTMM od skupine Ecogreen.
Indeed, given the level of direct export sales, it can only be concluded that PTMM’s export sales are performed not only from its related trader in Singapore, but also from Indonesia.
Dejansko se na podlagi ravni neposrednega izvoza lahko sklene le, da se izvoz družbe PTMM ne izvaja samo prek povezanega trgovca v Singapurju, temveč tudi iz Indonezije.