natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
CCCLA insisted that fine bone china should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation on the basis that it is a fragile luxury product with a low mechanical strength and it also contested whether it is chip resistant.
CCCLA je vztrajala, da bi bilo treba fini kostni porcelan izključiti iz obsega izdelka te preiskave, ker naj bi šlo za krhek luksuzni izdelek z majhno mehansko trdnostjo, ter nasprotovala trditvi, da je odporen na krušenje.
Yet it is noted that CCCLA itself had previously submitted that fine bone china had a high mechanical strength and was chip resistant.
Vendar je treba opomniti, da je CCCLA v svojih prejšnjih stališčih sama trdila, da sta za fini kostni porcelan značilni velika mehanska trdnost in odpornost proti krušenju.
These contradictory statements clearly undermined the CCCLA claims.
Te nasprotujoče si navedbe so močno omajale verodostojnost trditev CCCLA.
In any event, the arguments raised do not change the conclusions summarized in recital (28) of the provisional Regulation.
V vsakem primeru navedeni argumenti ne spreminjajo ugotovitev, povzetih v uvodni izjavi (28) začasne uredbe.
Therefore, the claim for the exclusion of fine bone china from the product scope is therefore definitively rejected.
Zato se zahtevek za izključitev finega kostnega porcelana iz obsega izdelka dokončno zavrne.
The same party reiterated that durable porcelain should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.
Ista stran je ponovno poudarila, da bi bilo treba trpežen porcelan izključiti iz obsega izdelka te preiskave.
It claimed that the statement that it does not have uncontested features was not true, that it was very robust due to a clay aluminium content of over 24 % and then contested the Union manufacturing capacity for this product.
Trdila je, da izjava, da nima neizpodbitnih lastnosti, ne drži, saj naj bi bil zaradi visoke vsebnosti aluminija v glini (več kot 24 %) zelo trden in izrazila dvom v zmogljivosti Unije za proizvodnjo tega izdelka.
However, the different submissions on durable porcelain are contradictory as regards, for instance, the raw materials share and its alumina powder content.
Vendar si različne trditve v zvezi s trpežnim porcelanom nasprotujejo na primer glede deleža surovin in vsebnosti aluminijevega oksida v prahu.
Moreover, it was not contested that durable porcelain was also manufactured in the Union and that producers in the PRC made durable porcelain which was in direct competition with Union produced durable porcelain as well as with other products covered by the investigation.
Poleg tega ni bilo zanikano, da se trpežen porcelan proizvaja tudi v Uniji ter da proizvajalci v LRK proizvajajo trpežen porcelan, ki neposredno konkurira trpežnemu porcelanu, proizvedenemu v Uniji, in drugim izdelkom, zajetim v preiskavi.
The claim to exclude durable porcelain is therefore definitively rejected.
Zahtevek za izključitev trpežnega porcelana se zato dokončno zavrne.
All types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware can be regarded as different types of the same product.
Vse vrste keramične namizne in kuhinjske posode se lahko štejejo za različne vrste istega izdelka.
Therefore, the claim made after provisional disclosure and again after final disclosure that the investigation covers a large range of like products and that, as a result, it would be necessary to conduct separate standing, dumping, injury, causation and Union interest analyses for each product segment, is found to be unfounded.
Zato je trditev, predložena po začasnem razkritju in ponovno po dokončnem razkritju, da preiskava zajema veliko podobnih izdelkov in da bi bilo treba zato za vsak segment izdelkov izvesti ločene analize reprezentativnosti, dampinga, škode, vzročne zveze in interesa Unije, neutemeljena.
One party that claimed that the product scope was too broad brought forward a comparison of products with different levels of decoration, but its statements as regards end-use (for the garden and children in one case, for decoration in the other case) are disputable because there is no clear-cut and those statements can rather be seen as a confirmation of the point made in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation.
Stran, ki je trdila, da je obseg izdelka preširok, je predložila primerjavo izdelkov z različnimi stopnjami okrašenosti, vendar so njene navedbe v zvezi s končno uporabo (v enem primeru za vrt in otroke, v drugem pa izključno za okras) sporne, ker ni jasne ločnice; zato te navedbe le potrjujejo ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave (55) začasne uredbe.
It should also be noted that an importer with production in the PRC submitted that over 99 % of the ceramic tableware and kitchenware products sold in the Union were predominantly or exclusively white.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je uvoznik s proizvodnjo v LRKtrdil, da je več kot 99 % keramične namizne in kuhinjske posode, ki se proda v Uniji, pretežno ali izključno bele barve.
Some parties contested recital (58) of the provisional Regulation on the basis that in the framework of the investigation the institutions did not carry out any test of whether certain merchandise was not suitable for free trade in the Union.
Nekatere strani so izpodbijale uvodno izjavo (58) začasne uredbe z navedbo, da institucije v okviru preiskave niso preverile, ali morda nekateri izdelki niso primerni za prosto trgovino v Uniji.
However, this fact does not undermine the conclusion in recital (63) of the provisional Regulation.
Vendar to dejstvo ne spreminja ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave (63) začasne uredbe.
In view of the above, the product scope is definitively defined as ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones of a kind used for baking pizza or bread, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes ex69111000, ex69120010, ex69120030, ex69120050 and ex69120090.
Glede na navedeno se obseg izdelka dokončno opredeli kot keramična namizna in kuhinjska posoda razen keramičnih nožev, keramičnih mlinčkov za začimbe ali zelišča in njihovih keramičnih drobilnih delov, keramičnih lupilcev, keramičnih brusilcev nožev ter kamnov za peko pice, ki so izdelani iz kordieritne keramike in se uporabljajo za peko pice ali kruha, s poreklom izLRK, trenutno uvrščena pod oznake KN ex69111000, ex69120010, ex69120030, ex69120050 in ex69120090.
In the absence of other comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, all other determinations in recitals (24) to (63) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom, se vse druge ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od (24) do (63) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Following provisional disclosure one exporting producer, one Union producer and one importer claimed that the MET determination was made out of time, i.e. after the three-month period laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and that the investigation therefore should be terminated without imposition of any anti-dumping measures.
Po začasnem razkritju so en proizvajalec izvoznik, en proizvajalec Unije in en uvoznik trdili, da TGO ni bila določena v roku, tj. v treh mesecih v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, in da bi se preiskava zato morala zaključiti brez uvedbe protidampinških ukrepov.
This claim in relation to the MET determination had already been made at the provisional stage and was rejected by the Commission in recitals (72) and (73) of the provisional Regulation.
Ta zahtevek v zvezi z določitvijo TGO je bil predstavljen že v fazi začasne preiskave, Komisija pa ga je zavrnila v uvodnih izjavah (72) in (73) začasne uredbe.
After final disclosure five more exporting producers put forward a similar claim.
Po dokončnem razkritju je podoben zahtevek vložilo še pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
In support of the claim they relied on the Court of Justice's judgments in the Brosmann and Aokang Shoes cases [4].
V podporo zahtevku so se sklicevali na sodbi Sodišča v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang Shoes [4].
First, it is recalled that the Brosmann and Aokang Shoes cases are not pertinent for the assessment of the legality of the MET analysis in the investigation at hand since those cases, contrary to this investigation, relate to situations where the MET assessments were not conducted at all.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da zadevi Brosmann in Aokang Shoes nista primerni za presojo zakonitosti analize TGO v tej preiskavi, ker se v nasprotju s to preiskavo nanašata na okoliščine, v katerih presoje v zvezi s TGO sploh niso bile izvedene.
Furthermore, the Brosmann and Aokang Shoes cases are not relevant for the assessment of the legality of the investigation at hand, in the light of the fact that the basic Regulation has meanwhile been amended [5].
Poleg tega zadevi Brosmann in Aokang nista relevantni za presojo zakonitosti te preiskave, saj je bila osnovna uredba medtem spremenjena [5].
Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, as amended, provides that the Commission shall only make MET determinations in respect of companies included in a sample pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation and that it shall make such a determination within seven months of, but in any event not later than eight months after the initiation of the investigation, is applicable to all new and pending investigations as from 15 December 2012, including therefore the present one.
Člen 2(7) osnovne uredbe, kakor je bil spremenjen, določa, da Komisija sprejme odločitev v zvezi s TGO le za družbe, vključene v vzorec v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe, in sicer v sedmih mesecih, najpozneje pa v osmih mesecih po začetku preiskave; ta določba se od 15. decembra 2012 uporablja za vse nove in vse tekoče preiskave, torej tudi za to preiskavo.
In any event, the interpretation of the case law that there was no infringement per se of the right to a MET determination notwithstanding the fact that the three month time limit was not respected, must be upheld.
V vsakem primeru je treba spoštovati razlago ustaljene sodne prakse, da pravica do določitve TGO ni bila kršena, ne glede na dejstvo, da trimesečni rok ni bil upoštevan.
Therefore, the conclusion in recital (73) of the provisional Regulation is maintained.
Zato se sklep iz uvodne izjave (73) začasne uredbe se ohrani.
Due to the large number of MET claims received and the need at that time to carry out numerous verification visits to examine those claims, the MET determination was not made within seven months.
Zaradi velikega števila prejetih zahtevkov za TGO in ker je bilo zaradi preverjanja navedenih zahtevkov treba opraviti številne preveritvene obiske, določitev TGO ni bila opravljena v sedmih mesecih.
However the determinations were made within eight months from the date of the initiation as required by the basic Regulation, as amended by Regulation 1168/2012.
Vendar je bila določitev opravljena v osmih mesecih od začetka preiskave, kot zahteva osnovna uredba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo 1168/2012.
The allegation that any right in this respect was removed with retroactive effect is not justified as explained above.
Trditev, da so bile kakršne koli pravice v zvezi s tem razveljavljene z retroaktivnim učinkom, ni upravičena, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj.
In view of the above, the claim that the anti-dumping investigation should be terminated without imposition of any anti-dumping measures, due to a failure to make a MET determination within three months, is rejected.
Zahtevek, da bi bilo treba protidampinško preiskavo zaključiti brez uvedbe protidampinških ukrepov, ker naj bi bil zamujen rok treh mesecev za določitev TGO, se glede na navedeno zavrne.
Furthermore, one non-sampled exporting producer that failed to demonstrate that it has one clear set of accounting records that were independently audited in line with international accounting standards and thus had its MET request rejected, maintained the claim that the alleged accounting errors, if any, on the basis of which its request was refused, were not material and that, therefore, the decision to refuse MET was disproportionate and in breach of the principle of proportionality.
Poleg tega je en nevzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik, ki mu ni uspelo dokazati, da ima jasno računovodsko evidenco, ki se neodvisno revidira v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, zaradi česar je bil njegov zahtevek zavrnjen, trdil, da domnevne računovodske napake, zaradi katerih je bil njegov zahtevek zavrnjen, niso bile bistvene ter da je bila odločitev o zavrnitvi TGO zato nesorazmerna in v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti.
Following final disclosure this exporting producer maintained its claim but did not put forward any new arguments.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je po dokončnem razkritju vztrajal pri svoji trditvi, vendar ni predložil nobenih novih argumentov.
The arguments concerning the severity of the accounting records are essentially identical to those made during the MET investigation and were rebutted by the Commission prior to the MET determination.
Argumenti o resnosti napak v računovodski evidenci so v osnovi enaki tistim iz preiskave v zvezi s TGO in jih je Komisija pred določitvijo TGO ovrgla.
Nevertheless, with regard to the argument that the refusal to grant MET breaches the principle of proportionality it should be recalled that the MET criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are cumulative and, unless they are all fulfilled, MET cannot legally be granted.
Kljub temu pa je v zvezi z argumentom, da je bilo z zavrnitvijo odobritve TGO kršeno načelo sorazmernosti, treba opomniti, da so merila za odobritev TGO iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe kumulativna in da se TGO lahko zakonito odobri le, če so vsa merila izpolnjena.
In addition, since the burden of proof is on the company requesting MET and the company failed to demonstrate that it had one clear set of accounts, the only option available to the Commission was to refuse MET.
Poleg tega je dokazno breme na družbi, ki vloži zahtevek za TGO, zadevna družba pa ni dokazala, da ima jasno računovodsko evidenco, zato Komisiji ni preostalo drugega, kot da zahtevek za TGO zavrne.
Therefore, the decision to refuse MET cannot be considered to be in breach of the principle of proportionality.
Zato odločitve o zavrnitvi TGO ni mogoče obravnavati kot kršitve načela sorazmernosti.
In any event, pursuant to Article 2(7)(d) of the basic Regulation, as amended by Regulation 1168/2012 [6], when the Commission has limited its examination by the use of sampling, a determination on MET shall be limited to the parties included in the sample.
Ko Komisija omeji preiskavo z vzorčenjem, se v skladu s členom 2(7)(d) osnovne uredbe, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 1168/2012 [6], odločanje o TGO v vsakem primeru omeji na strani, vključene v vzorec.
It is recalled that although sixteen exporting producers requested IT, only the claims received from the sampled companies were examined pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation and were subsequently accepted.
Opozoriti je treba, da so bili v skladu s členom 9(6) osnovne uredbe pregledani in sprejeti le zahtevki vzorčenih družb, čeprav je zahtevek za IO vložilo šestnajst proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Of the remaining eleven exporting producers, seven requested individual examination.
Od preostalih enajst proizvajalcev izvoznikov jih je sedem zahtevalo individualno preiskavo.
In accordance with Articles 9(5) and 9(6) of the basic Regulation, individual duties shall be applied to imports from any exporter or producer which will be granted individual examination, as provided for in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 9(5) in (6) osnovne uredbe se individualne dajatve uporabijo za uvoz blaga katerega koli izvoznika ali proizvajalca, ki mu bo odobrena individualna preiskava, kot je določeno v členu 17(3) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, the four companies that requested IT but not individual examination could not be granted an individual duty.
Tako štirim družbam, ki so zahtevale IO, ne pa individualne preiskave, ni bilo mogoče odobriti individualne dajatve.
One exporting producer claimed that it had submitted all information required within given deadlines and should therefore have had its IT claim examined and an individual margin established in accordance with the Court of Justice ruling in the Brosmann case [7].
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je vse zahtevane informacije predložil v predpisanih rokih ter da bi zato njegov zahtevek za IO moral biti pregledan, njemu pa določena individualna stopnja dajatve v skladu s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Brosmann [7].
As the company in question was not included in the sample its claim for IT could only be assessed in the context of an individual examination, should one be carried out pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Ker zadevna družba ni bila vključena v vzorec, bi bilo njen zahtevek za IO mogoče oceniti samo v okviru individualne preiskave, če bi v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe do nje prišlo.
In the absence of any further comments on IT, recitals (79) to (81) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb glede IO, se uvodne izjave od (79) do (81) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Claims for individual examination pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation were submitted by seven exporting producers, comprising ten legal entities.
Zahtevke za individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe je vložilo sedem proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki skupaj štejejo deset pravnih oseb.
As explained in recitals (82) and (83) of the provisional Regulation, no decisions were taken in respect of these requests at the stage of provisional measures.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah (82) in (83) začasne uredbe, o teh zahtevkih v okviru začasne preiskave ni bila sprejeta nobena odločitev.
On 21 December 2012 the exporting producers were informed that their requests for individual examinations could not be accepted as they would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in due time.
Proizvajalci izvozniki so bili 21. decembra 2012 obveščeni, da njihovi zahtevki za individualne preiskave niso bili odobreni, saj bi slednje predstavljale preveliko obremenitev in bi onemogočile, da se preiskava zaključi v primernem času.
One exporting producer claimed that, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, an individual examination is a statutory right and that the Commission's refusal to individually examine it is unjustified, since neither the number of companies nor the examination required would, in view of the Commission's resources, be unduly burdensome or prevent the completion of the investigation in due time.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe individualna preiskava zakonska pravica ter da jo je Komisija neutemeljeno zavrnila, ker glede na vire, ki so Komisiji na voljo, niti število družb niti preiskava ne bi bila preveč obremenjujoča ali preprečila pravočasnega zaključka preiskave.
Following final disclosure this claim was repeated, but no further arguments were put forward.
Po dokončnem razkritju je bila ta trditev ponovljena, vendar dodatni argumenti niso bili predloženi.
The decision whether or not to accept individual examinations is taken on a case-by case-basis, taking into account the number of claims submitted and the time available to assess these claims.
Odločitev o tem, ali bodo individualne preiskave odobrene, se sprejme za vsak primer posebej, pri čemer se upoštevata število vloženih zahtevkov in razpoložljiv čas za njihovo oceno.
In this case, it should be recalled that the Commission was legally obliged to carry out MET examinations at sixteen legal entities in the PRC, including companies not selected in the sample.
V tem primeru je treba opozoriti, da je bila Komisija pravno zavezana izvesti preiskave v zvezi s TGO pri šestnajstih pravnih osebah v LRK, vključno z družbami, ki niso bile izbrane v vzorec.
Considering the time constraints imposed by legal procedural deadlines no individual examinations could therefore be carried out prior to the provisional findings.
Ob upoštevanju časovnih omejitev, ki jih nalagajo procesnopravni roki, individualnih preiskav zato pred začasnimi ugotovitvami ni bilo mogoče izvesti.
In view of the limited time available thereafter and considering the number of claims submitted and the limited resources available by the services responsible for anti-dumping investigations in the Commission, it was concluded that it would be unduly burdensome to carry out individual examinations in this case.
Zaradi omejenega časa, ki je bil na voljo zatem, ter ob upoštevanju števila vloženih zahtevkov in omejenih virov, ki so na voljo službam Komisije, pristojnim za protidampinške preiskave, je bilo sklenjeno, da bi bila v tem primeru izvedba individualnih preiskav preveč obremenjujoča.
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the selection of an appropriate analogue country was further examined.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov je bila dodatno preučena izbira ustrezne primerljive države.
In this context, a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the Thai exporting producer that had submitted a questionnaire reply, as mentioned in recital (87) of the provisional Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je bil opravljen preveritveni obisk v prostorih tajskega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki je predložil izpolnjen vprašalnik, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (87) začasne uredbe.
After having examined and verified the information received from the cooperating producer in Thailand it was however concluded that the Thai producer could not provide data at a sufficient level of detail regarding the types of products sold on the domestic market.
Po preučitvi in preveritvi informacij, ki jih je predložil sodelujoči tajski proizvajalec, je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni mogel predložiti dovolj podrobnih podatkov o vrstah izdelkov, ki se prodajajo na domačem trgu.
Therefore, it was considered that Brazil should be retained as the most appropriate analogue country.
Zato je obveljalo, da je treba kot najustreznejšo primerljivo državo ohraniti Brazilijo.
Nevertheless, the information obtained from Thailand served to support some of the findings made in Brazil, notably the level of price difference between branded and non-branded products (see recital (91) below).
Vendar so bile informacije, pridobljene s Tajske, uporabljene v podporo nekaterim ugotovitvam, pridobljenim v Braziliji, zlasti v zvezi z razliko v ceni med izdelki z blagovno znamko in izdelki brez blagovne znamke (glej uvodno izjavo (91)).
Following final disclosure one industry association came forward and contested the choice of Brazil as an appropriate analogue country.
Po dokončnem razkritju je eno panožno združenje nasprotovalo izbiri Brazilije kot ustrezne primerljive države.
It essentially argued that the only reason to choose Brazil appears to be based on the fact that no other country was appropriate.
V osnovi je trdilo, da je očitno edini razlog za izbiro Brazilije dejstvo, da nobena druga država ni bila primerna.
It follows clearly from the recitals (84) to (88) of the provisional Regulation that Brazil was considered as an appropriate analogue country based on the factual domestic market situation.
V uvodnih izjavah od (84) do (88) začasne uredbe je pojasnjeno, da je Brazilija obveljala kot ustrezna primerljiva država zaradi dejanskih razmer na domačem trgu.
The fact that the Commission, after provisional measures continued to examine also other potential analogue countries does not lead to the conclusion that Brazil is not an appropriate choice.
Dejstvo, da je Komisija po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov še naprej preučevala tudi druge potencialne primerljive države, ne pomeni, da Brazilija ni ustrezna izbira.
In view of the above and in the absence of any other comments on substance on the choice of Brazil as the appropriate analogue country, recitals (84) to (88) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Glede na navedeno in ker ni bilo drugih vsebinskih pripomb glede izbire Brazilije kot ustrezne primerljive države, se uvodne izjave od (84) do (88) začasne uredbe potrdijo.