natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following an application by Interpipe for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, on 10 March 2009 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled Article 1 of that Regulation in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for Interpipe exceeded that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the intermediary of the affiliated trader, Sepco SA [3].
Na podlagi vloge Interpipe za razveljavitev Uredbe (ES) št. 954/2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti 10. marca 2009 razveljavilo člen 1 navedene uredbe, v kolikor je protidampinška dajatev, določena za Interpipe, večja od dajatve, ki bi se morala uporabiti, če izvozna cena ne bi bila prilagojena za provizijo, ko je prodaja potekala prek povezanega trgovca, Sepco SA [3].
On 16 February 2012 the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance [4].
Sodišče Evropske unije je 16. februarja 2012 potrdilo sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje [4].
Following these judgments, the Council amended Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 by means of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 [5] to correct the anti-dumping duty imposed on Interpipe in so far as it had been erroneously established.
Po teh sodbah je Svet z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 540/2012 [5] spremenil Uredbo (ES) št. 954/2006, da bi popravil protidampinško dajatev, uvedeno za Interpipe, v kolikor je bila ta napačno določena.
Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty currently in force for Interpipe is 17,7 %.
Zato je protidampinška dajatev, ki trenutno velja za Interpipe 17,7 %.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 [6] the Council, following an expiry review, maintained the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on imports of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine (‘the expiry review investigation’).
Svet je po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 585/2012 [6] ohranil ukrepe, uvedene z Uredbo (ES) št. 954/2006 na uvoz brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla s poreklom iz Rusije in Ukrajine (v nadaljnjem besedilu: preiskava v zvezi s pregledom zaradi izteka ukrepa).
Accordingly, the measures currently in force are those established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012, i.e. between 24,1 % and 35,8 % for imports from Russia and between 12,3 % and 25,7 % for imports from Ukraine, with Interpipe having an anti-dumping duty of 17,7 %.
Zato so trenutno veljavni ukrepi tisti, ki jih določa Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 585/2012, tj. med 24,1 % in 35,8 % za uvoz iz Rusije in med 12,3 % in 25,7 % za uvoz iz Ukrajine, za Interpipe velja protidampinška dajatev 17,7 %.
On 29 July 2011, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation (‘Notice of initiation’) [7] of a partial interim review, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Ukraine.
Komisija je 29. julija 2011 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o začetku) [7], napovedala začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda, v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, protidampinških ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo za uvoz nekaterih brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla s poreklom iz Ukrajine.
The review, which is limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by Interpipe.
Pregled, ki je po obsegu omejen na preučitev dampinga, se je začel po utemeljenem zahtevku, ki ga vložil Interpipe.
In the request, Interpipe provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measures at the current level is no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.
V zahtevku je Interpipe predložil dokaze prima facie, da za izravnavo škodljivega dampinga nadaljevanje ukrepov na sedanji ravni ni več potrebno.
The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Preiskava stopnje dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2010 do 31. marca 2011 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom ali OPP).
The Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review.
Komisija je vložnika, organe države izvoznice in industrijo Unije uradno obvestila o začetku delnega vmesnega pregleda.
In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant, which responded within the given deadline.
Za pridobitev informacij, ki so potrebne za njeno preiskavo, je Komisija vložniku poslala vprašalnik, ki se je odzval v danem roku.
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the level of dumping.
Komisija si je priskrbela in preverila vse informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za ugotovitev stopnje dampinga.
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and at its related trading companies LLC Interpipe Ukraine and Interpipe Europe SA.
Preveritveni obiski so bili opravljeni v prostorih vložnika in z njim povezanih trgovinskih družbah LLC Interpipe Ukraine in Interpipe Europe SA.
The product concerned is the same as that defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 which imposed the measures currently in force, namely seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (SPT), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis [8], originating in Ukraine, currently falling within CN codes ex73041100, ex73041910, ex73041930, ex73042200, ex73042300, ex73042400, ex73042910, ex73042930, ex73043180, ex73043958, ex73043992, ex73043993, ex73045189, ex73045992 and ex73045993 (‘the product concerned’).
Zadevni izdelek je enak, kot ga opredeljuje Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 585/2012, na podlagi katere so bili uvedeni trenutno veljavni ukrepi, in sicer brezšivne cevi iz železa ali jekla s krožnim prečnim prerezom z zunanjim premerom do vključno 406,4 mm in z ekvivalentom ogljika (CEV) do vključno 0,86 v skladu s formulo in kemično analizo Mednarodnega inštituta za varilstvo (IIW) [8], ki se trenutno uvrščajo pod oznake KN ex73041100, ex73041910, ex73041930, ex73042200, ex73042300, ex73042400, ex73042910, ex73042930, ex73043180, ex73043958, ex73043992, ex73043993, ex73045189, ex73045992 in ex73045993, s poreklom iz Ukrajine (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadevni izdelek).
As established in the original investigation as well as in the expiry review investigation, the current investigation confirmed that the product produced in Ukraine and exported to the Union, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Ukraine and the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses.
Sedanja preiskava je potrdila, da imajo, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi in preiskavi v zvezi s pregledom zaradi izteka ukrepa, izdelek, ki ga proizvajajo v Ukrajini in se izvaža v Unijo, izdelek, ki se proizvaja in prodaja na notranjem trgu Ukrajine, ter izdelek, ki ga v Uniji proizvajajo in prodajajo proizvajalci Unije, enake osnovne fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti ter končne uporabe.
Interpipe has two fully owned and controlled exporting producers, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (Niko Tube) and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP).
Interpipe ima v celoti v lasti in pod nadzorom dva proizvajalca izvoznika, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (Niko Tube) in OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP).
In line with the Union institutions’ standard practice, one common dumping margin was calculated for the two exporting producers.
V skladu z običajno prakso institucij Unije je bila izračunana ena skupna stopnja dampinga za oba proizvajalca izvoznika.
The amount of dumping was first calculated for each individual exporting producer before determining a single weighted average rate of dumping for both companies.
Znesek dampinga je bil najprej izračunan za vsakega posameznega proizvajalca izvoznika, nato je bila za obe družbi določena enotna tehtana povprečna stopnja dampinga.
This methodology, however, was different from the methodology applied in the original investigation, where the common dumping margin was calculated by collapsing all data relating to production, profitability and sales in the Union of the two producing entities.
Vendar je bila ta metodologija drugačna od metodologije, ki se je uporabila v prvotni preiskavi, pri kateri je bila skupna stopnja dampinga izračunana z združitvijo vseh podatkov, ki se nanašajo na proizvodnjo, dobičkonosnost in prodajo obeh subjektov proizvajalcev v Uniji.
The change in circumstances that warrants this change in methodology consists in a marked change in the corporate structure of the group enabling the identification of the relevant production company with respect to sales and production, which was not possible in the original investigation.
Spremenjene okoliščine, ki upravičujejo to spremembo metodologije, so pogojene z izrazito spremembo podjetniške strukture skupine, ki omogoča opredelitev ustrezne proizvodnje družbe glede na prodajo in proizvodnjo, kar v prvotni preiskavi ni bilo možno.
Furthermore, in the original investigation, an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was made in respect of Interpipe’s energy costs in order to reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of electricity and gas in Ukraine.
Poleg tega so bili v prvotni preiskavi v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe za Interpipe prilagojeni energetski stroški, da bi ustrezno odražali stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo in prodajo električne energije in plina v Ukrajini.
This adjustment was deemed necessary due to the fact that Ukrainian gas and electricity prices, at the time, were significantly lower than the average price paid in the Union and did not reflect international market prices.
Ta prilagoditev se je štela za potrebno zaradi dejstva, da so bile tedanje ukrajinske cene plina in električne energije znatno nižje kot povprečne cene v Uniji in niso odražale mednarodnih tržnih cen.
The adjustment was based on the average prices observed in Romania, which at that time formed part of the investigation.
Prilagoditev je temeljila na povprečju cen, ugotovljenih v Romuniji, ki je bila takrat del preiskave.
However, contrary to the original investigation, it is considered that an energy adjustment is not deemed necessary for the purpose of the current interim review.
Vendar se v nasprotju s prvotno preiskavo ocenjuje, da prilagoditev za energetske stroške za namen sedanjega vmesnega pregleda ni potrebna.
The investigation has shown that the average Ukrainian energy prices have increased steadily since the original investigation, at a much higher rate than the average prices in the European Union, thus gradually bridging the gap between them.
Preiskava je pokazala, da so se povprečne cene ukrajinske energije od prvotne preiskave naprej stalno višale, in sicer z veliko večjo stopnjo od povprečnih cen v Evropski uniji, s čimer so postopoma zapolnile vrzeli med njimi.
The considerable price difference in energy costs that was found during the original investigation and warranted an adjustment is therefore currently not present.
Znatna razlika v ceni stroškov za energijo, ki je bila ugotovljena v prvotni preiskavi in je utemeljevala prilagoditev, zato zdaj ni prisotna.
Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to make an energy adjustment in this interim review.
Zato ni ustrezno, da se v tem vmesnem pregledu izvede prilagoditev za energetske stroške.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined whether each exporting producers’ total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union.
V skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe se je najprej za vsakega proizvajalca izvoznika preučilo, ali je bil celoten obseg domače prodaje podobnega izdelka neodvisnim strankam reprezentativen v primerjavi s celotnim obsegom izvozne prodaje v Unijo, tj. ali je celoten obseg take prodaje predstavljal vsaj 5 % celotnega obsega izvozne prodaje zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.
The examination established that the domestic sales were representative for both exporting producers.
S preiskavo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila domača prodaja reprezentativna za oba proizvajalca izvoznika.
It was further examined whether each product type of the like product sold by the exporting producers on its domestic market were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
Nadalje je bilo preučeno, ali je bila vsaka vrsta izdelka podobnega izdelka, ki sta jo proizvajalca izvoznika prodala na svojem notranjem trgu, dovolj reprezentativna za namene člena 2(2) osnovne uredbe.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold by the applicant on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.
Domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka se je štela za dovolj reprezentativno, če je celotni obseg te vrste izdelka, ki ga je vložnik na domačem trgu prodal neodvisnim strankam v OPP, pomenil vsaj 5 % celotnega obsega prodaje primerljive vrste izdelka, izvoženega v Unijo.
In accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation it was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each product type that had been sold in representative quantities could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade.
V skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe je bilo nato preučeno, ali se za domačo prodajo vsake posamezne vrste izdelka, ki je bila prodana v reprezentativnih količinah, lahko šteje, da se je izvajala v običajnem poteku trgovanja.
This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.
To je bilo izvedeno tako, da se je pri vsaki izvoženi vrsti izdelka določil delež dobičkonosne domače prodaje neodvisnim strankam na domačem trgu v OPP.
For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market of the product type were above cost and for which the weighted average sales price was equal to, or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
Za tiste vrste izdelkov, pri katerih je bilo več kot 80 % obsega prodaje vrste izdelka na domačem trgu prodanih po ceni, višji od stroškov, in pri katerih je bila tehtana povprečna prodajna cena enaka ali višja od stroškov proizvodnje na enoto, je bila normalna vrednost po vrsti izdelka izračunana kot tehtano povprečje dejanskih domačih cen celotne prodaje zadevne vrste, ne glede na to, ali je bila ta prodaja dobičkonosna ali ne.
Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or for which the weighted average price was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.
Kadar je obseg dobičkonosne prodaje vrste izdelka pomenil 80 % ali manj celotnega obsega prodaje navedene vrste ali pri katerih je bila tehtana povprečna cena nižja od stroškov proizvodnje na enoto, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtana povprečna cena zgolj dobičkonosne domače prodaje te vrste v OPP.
The normal value for the non-representative types (i.e. those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 % of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits.
Normalna vrednost za nereprezentativne vrste (tj. tiste, pri katerih je domača prodaja pomenila manj kot 5 % izvozne prodaje v Unijo ali se sploh niso prodajale na domačem trgu) je bila izračunana na podlagi proizvodnih stroškov za posamezno vrsto izdelka, h katerim se prišteje znesek za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške ter za dobiček.
In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of transactions in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market per product type for the product types concerned was used.
V primeru obstoječe domače prodaje je bil za zadevne vrste izdelkov uporabljen dobiček iz transakcij v okviru običajnega poteka trgovine na domačem trgu za vrsto izdelka.
Where there were no domestic sales, an average profit was used.
Če domače prodaje ni bilo, se je uporabil povprečen dobiček.
This change in methodology was due to the fact that, following the original investigation, a WTO Panel issued, and the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted a report in the case European Communities — Anti-dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway [9], which provides that the actual profit margin established for the transactions in the ordinary course of trade of the relevant product types for which normal value has to be constructed cannot be disregarded.
Ta sprememba metodologije je bila posledica dejstva, da je Odbor STO po prvotni preiskavi predložil, Organ STO za poravnavo sporov pa sprejel poročilo v zadevi Evropske skupnosti – protidampinški ukrep na gojenega lososa z Norveške [9], ki določa, da dejanske stopnje dobička, določene za transakcije v običajnem poteku trgovine z zadevnimi vrstami izdelka, za katere je treba konstruirati normalno vrednost, ni mogoče zanemariti.
After disclosure of the final conclusions, the two exporting producers argued that idle costs should not have been included in their total manufacturing costs of the product concerned during the RIP, claiming that this was in breach of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation and in contradiction with the accounting principles set out under the International Accounting Standards (IAS) and IAS 2 in particular.
Po razkritju končnih sklepov sta dva proizvajalca izvoznika trdila, da stroški mirovanja ne bi smeli biti vključeni v njihove skupne proizvodne stroške zadevnega izdelka v OPP, saj je to kršitev člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe in v nasprotju z računovodskimi načeli iz mednarodnih računovodskih standardov (MRS), zlasti MRS 2.
With regard to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation it should be noted that under that Article, when it is considered that costs associated with the production of the product concerned are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they are to be adjusted.
V zvezi s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je treba v skladu z navedenim členom stroške, povezane s proizvodnjo zadevnega proizvoda, prilagoditi, kadar se šteje, da ti stroški niso ustrezno izraženi v evidencah zadevne stranke.
The fact that the company did not operate at its full capacity implied that costs were, however, incurred.
Čeprav družba ni obratovala v svoji polni zmogljivosti, je še vedno imela stroške.
Indeed, such costs were recorded as a cost in the income statement of the two exporting companies and could directly be linked to the like product.
Dejansko so bili takšni stroški knjiženi kot stroški v izkazu poslovnega izida obeh družb izvoznic in bi se jih dalo neposredno povezati s podobnim izdelkom.
Furthermore, reference to IAS 2 was found to be irrelevant because the objective of IAS 2 is to prescribe the accounting treatment for inventories and does not determine what should be considered as cost of manufacturing.
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da sklic na MRS 2 ni relevanten, saj je namen MRS 2 predpisati računovodsko rešitev glede zalog in ne določa, kaj bi bilo treba šteti za stroške proizvodnje.
The same exporting producers also claimed that certain financial expenses resulting from loans, which were included in the Selling, General and Administrative expenses, should have been excluded.
Ista proizvajalca izvoznika sta trdila tudi, da bi bilo treba nekatere finančne stroške, ki izhajajo iz posojil, ki so bili vključeni med prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške, izključiti.
They claimed that these loans were taken to satisfy the needs for liquidity and short-term financing of the company and they were not related to the production of the product concerned.
Trdila sta, da so bila ta posojila odziv na potrebe po likvidnosti in namenjena kratkoročnemu financiranju družbe in niso bila povezana s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
During the verification visit it was indeed found that the interest expenses were mainly related to finance the working capital.
Med preveritvenim obiskom je bilo dejansko ugotovljeno, da so bili stroški obresti v glavnem povezani s financiranjem obratnega kapitala.
Therefore, interest costs were allocated to all products.
Zato so bili stroški obresti pripisani vsem izdelkom.
The exporting producers could not demonstrate that the interest expenses were specifically made for other purposes than to finance the working capital.
Proizvajalca izvoznika nista mogla dokazati, da so bili stroški obresti posebej povzročeni zaradi namenov, ki niso financiranje obratnega kapitala.
The two exporting producers could not provide any further evidence to substantiate their claim and this claim was therefore rejected.
Nobeden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel zagotoviti kakršnih koli nadaljnjih dokazov v utemeljitev svoje trditve, zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
All exports of the product concerned by the two exporting producers to the Union were made through a related trading company located in Switzerland directly to independent customers in the Union.
Ves izvoz zadevnega izdelka obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Unijo je potekal prek povezane trgovske družbe v Švici neposredno neodvisnim strankam v Uniji.
The export price was therefore established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bila izvozna cena določena na podlagi izvoznih cen, ki so se dejansko plačevale ali se plačujejo, v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe.
It is recalled that in the original investigation an adjustment was made to the export price under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in the cases where sales were made through related traders.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bila v prvotni preiskavi v primerih, ko je prodaja potekala prek povezanih trgovcev, opravljena prilagoditev izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe.
However, in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice mentioned in recital 2, which held that the adjustment was not warranted, no such adjustment has been made in this interim review.
Vendar v skladu s sodbo Sodišča iz uvodne izjave 2, v kateri je bilo odločeno, da prilagoditev ni bila utemeljena, takšna prilagoditev v tem vmesnem pregledu ni bila opravljena.
The normal value and the export price of the two exporting producers were compared on an ex-works basis.
Normalna vrednost in izvozna cena obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta bili primerjani na podlagi franko tovarna.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Z namenom zagotovitve poštene primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno so se v obliki prilagoditev ustrezno upoštevale razlike, ki vplivajo na cene in primerljivost cen v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.