natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established and the corresponding weighted average export prices of Sri Lanka during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
V skladu s členom 2(11) in (12) osnovne uredbe je bil damping izračunan na podlagi primerjave tehtane povprečne normalne vrednosti, kot je bila predhodno določena, in tehtanih povprečnih izvoznih cen Šrilanke v obdobju poročanja ter izražen kot odstotek cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve.
The export price was established on the basis of the average export price of bicycles during the RP as reported in Comext which was cross checked with the export data from the company not involved in circumvention practices.
Izvozna cena je bila določena na podlagi povprečne izvozne cene koles v obdobju poročanja po podatkih COMEXT, navzkrižno preverjenih z izvoznimi podatki družbe, ki ni vključena v prakse izogibanja.
Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in transport, insurance and packing costs based on information submitted by the Union industry in its request for the current investigation.
V skladu s tem so se izvedle prilagoditve za razlike v stroških prevoza, zavarovanja in pakiranja na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložila industrija Unije v svojem zahtevku za sedanjo preiskavo.
In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, dumping was calculated by comparing the weighted average normal value as previously established and the corresponding weighted average export prices of Tunisia during the RP, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price at the Union frontier duty unpaid.
V skladu s členom 2(11) in (12) osnovne uredbe je bil damping izračunan na podlagi primerjave tehtane povprečne normalne vrednosti, kot je bila predhodno določena, in tehtanih povprečnih izvoznih cen Tunizije v obdobju poročanja ter izražen kot odstotek cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve.
Given the above, it can be concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC was circumvented by transhipment via Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and assembly operations via Malaysia and Tunisia within the meaning of Article 13 of the basic Regulation.
Glede na navedeno se je ugotovilo izogibanje dokončni protidampinški dajatvi, uvedeni na uvoz koles s poreklom iz LRK, in sicer s pretovarjanjem prek Indonezije, Malezije in Šrilanke ter dejavnostjo sestavljanja prek Malezije in Tunizije v smislu člena 13 osnovne uredbe.
In accordance with the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the existing measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC, should therefore be extended to imports of the same product consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not.
V skladu s prvim stavkom člena 13(1) osnovne uredbe bi bilo treba veljavne ukrepe za uvoz zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK razširiti na uvoz enakega izdelka, poslanega iz Indonezije, Malezije, Šrilanke in Tunizije ne glede na to, ali je deklariran kot izdelek s poreklom iz Indonezije, Malezije, Šrilanke in Tunizije ali ne.
The measures to be extended should be the ones currently established in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011, which are a definitive anti-dumping duty of 48,5 % applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before customs duty.
Ukrepi, ki jih je treba razširiti, so trenutno določeni ukrepi iz člena 1(2) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 990/2011, ki je dokončna protidampinška dajatev v višini 48,5 %, ki se uporablja za neto ceno franko meja Unije, pred plačilom carine.
In accordance with Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation, which provides that any extended measure should apply to imports which entered the Union under registration imposed by the initiating Regulation, duties should be collected on those registered imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
V skladu s členom 13(3) in členom 14(5) osnovne uredbe, ki določata, da je treba uporabljati vse razširjene ukrepe za uvoz, za katerega pri vstopu v Unijo velja registracija, uvedena z uredbo o začetku preiskave, bi bilo treba pobrati dajatve na navedeni registrirani uvoz koles, poslanih iz Indonezije, Malezije, Šrilanke in Tunizije.
The four companies in Indonesia that requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted a reply to the exemption form.
Štiri družbe v Indoneziji, ki so zahtevale izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, so predložile izpolnjen obrazec za izvzetje.
As stated in recitals 29 to 33, application of Article 18 was warranted for one company.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 29 do 33, je bila pri eni od družb utemeljena uporaba člena 18.
Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, the exemption cannot be granted to this company.
Zato ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz uvodne izjave 58 izvzetja tej družbi ni mogoče odobriti.
The other three cooperating companies in Indonesia that requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation were not found to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to this investigation as stated in recital 65.
Pri drugih treh sodelujočih družbah v Indoneziji, ki so zahtevale izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, se ni ugotovila vključenost v prakse izogibanja, ki so predmet te preiskave, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 65.
Furthermore, these producers could demonstrate that they are not related to any of the producers/exporters engaged in circumvention practices nor to any of the Chinese producers/exporters of bicycles.
Poleg tega so ti proizvajalci lahko dokazali, da niso povezani s proizvajalci/izvozniki, ki so vključeni v prakse izogibanja, niti s kitajskimi proizvajalci/izvozniki koles.
Therefore, an exemption from the extended measures could be granted to these three companies.
Zato se je tem trem družbam lahko odobrilo izvzetje iz razširjenih ukrepov.
One company in Malaysia that requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted a reply to the exemption form.
Ena družba v Maleziji, ki je zahtevala izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, je predložila izpolnjen obrazec za izvzetje.
As stated in recitals 72 to 76, the company was found to be involved in circumvention practices.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 72 do 76, se je za to družbo ugotovilo, da je vključena v prakse izogibanja.
Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be granted to this company.
Zato ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz uvodne izjave 58 tej družbi izvzetja ni mogoče odobriti.
The six companies in Sri Lanka that requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted replies to the exemption form.
Šest družb v Šrilanki, ki so zahtevale izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, je predložilo izpolnjene obrazce za izvzetje.
As stated in recital 36, one of the companies withdrew its request for exemption during the investigation and therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be granted to this company.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 36, je ena od družb med preiskavo umaknila svoj zahtevek za izvzetje, zato ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz uvodne izjave 58 tej družbi izvzetja ni mogoče odobriti.
For the other two companies application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation was warranted as stated in recitals 36 to 42 and therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be granted to these companies.
Pri drugih dveh družbah je bila utemeljena uporaba člena 18 osnovne uredbe, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 36 do 42, zato ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz uvodne izjave 58 tema družbama izvzetja ni mogoče odobriti.
The other three cooperating companies in Sri Lanka requesting an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation were found not to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to this investigation as stated in recitals 80 and 81.
Pri drugih treh sodelujočih družbah v Šrilanki, ki so zahtevale izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, se ni ugotovila vključenost v prakse izogibanja, ki so predmet sedanje preiskave, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 80 in 81.
Furthermore, these producers could demonstrate that they are not related to any of the companies found to circumvent nor to any of the Chinese producers/exporters of bicycles.
Poleg tega so ti proizvajalci lahko dokazali, da niso povezani z družbami, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno izogibanje, niti s kitajskimi proizvajalci/izvozniki koles.
Therefore, an exemption from the extended measures could be granted to these companies.
Zato se je tem družbam lahko odobrilo izvzetje iz razširjenih ukrepov.
The two companies in Tunisia that requested an exemption from the possible extended measures in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation submitted replies to the exemption form.
Dve družbi v Tuniziji, ki sta zahtevali izvzetje iz morebitnih razširjenih ukrepov v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, sta predložili izpolnjene obrazce za izvzetje.
One company was found not to be engaged in the circumvention practices subject to this investigation.
Za eno družbo se je ugotovilo, da ni vključena v prakse izogibanja, ki so predmet sedanje preiskave.
Furthermore, this producer could demonstrate that it is not related to any of the companies found to circumvent nor to any of the Chinese producers/exporters of bicycles.
Poleg tega je ta proizvajalec lahko dokazal, da ni povezan z družbami, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno izogibanje, niti s kitajskimi proizvajalci/izvozniki koles.
Therefore, an exemption from the extended measures could be granted to this company.
Zato se je tej družbi lahko odobrilo izvzetje iz razširjenih ukrepov.
As stated in recital 89, the second company was found to be involved in circumvention practices.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 89, se je za drugo družbo ugotovilo, da je vključena v prakse izogibanja.
Therefore, in view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment as set out in recital 58, an exemption cannot be granted.
Zato ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi s spremembo vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz uvodne izjave 58 izvzetja ni mogoče odobriti.
Special measures
4.5 Posebni ukrepi
These special measures are the requirement of the presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which shall conform to the requirements set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Taki posebni ukrepi so zahteva za predložitev veljavnega trgovinskega računa carinskim organom držav članic, ki je v skladu z zahtevami iz Priloge k tej uredbi.
Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the extended anti-dumping duty.
Za uvoz, ki ga tak račun ne spremlja, velja razširjena protidampinška dajatev.
Newcomers
4.6 Novi proizvajalci/izvozniki
Without prejudice to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, other producers/exporters in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia which did not come forward in this proceeding and did not export the product under investigation to the Union in the RP and which consider lodging a request for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation will be required to complete a questionnaire in order to enable the Commission to determine whether an exemption may be warranted.
Brez poseganja v člen 11(3) osnovne uredbe bodo morali drugi proizvajalci/izvozniki v Indoneziji, Maleziji, Šrilanki in Tuniziji, ki se niso javili v tem postopku in v obdobju poročanja niso izvažali izdelka v preiskavi v Unijo ter bi hoteli vložiti zahtevek za izvzetje iz razširjene protidampinške dajatve v skladu s členom 11(4) in členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe, izpolniti vprašalnik, s pomočjo katerega bo Komisija določila, ali se jim lahko odobri izvzetje.
Such an exemption may be granted after the assessment of the market situation of the product under investigation, production capacity and capacity utilisation, procurement and sales and the likelihood of a continuation of practices for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification and the evidence of dumping.
Tako izvzetje se lahko odobri po oceni razmer na trgu izdelka v preiskavi, proizvodne zmogljivosti in izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti, naročil in prodaje, verjetnega nadaljevanja praks, za katere ni zadostnega vzroka ali niso gospodarsko upravičene, ter dokazov o dampingu.
The request should be addressed to the Commission forthwith, with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to the production and sales.
Zahtevek je treba nemudoma nasloviti na Komisijo, in sicer z vsemi pomembnimi informacijami, zlasti v zvezi z vsako spremembo dejavnosti družbe, povezano s proizvodnjo in prodajo.
Where an exemption is warranted, the extended measures in force shall be amended accordingly.
Kadar je izvzetje utemeljeno, se razširjeni veljavni ukrepi ustrezno spremenijo.
Subsequently, any exemption granted will be monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions set therein.
Nato se bo vsako odobreno izvzetje spremljalo, da se zagotovi skladnost z njegovimi pogoji.
All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations leading to the above conclusions and were invited to comment.
Vse zainteresirane strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in stališčih, na katerih temeljijo navedene sklepne ugotovitve, ter pozvane k predložitvi pripomb.
One Indonesian company reiterated its claims mentioned in recital 31 without bringing any new substantiated evidence.
Ena indonezijska družba je ponovila svoje trditve iz uvodne izjave 31, ne da bi predložila nove utemeljene dokaze.
In this regard, as mentioned in recital 29, the data submitted by the company was unverifiable as no working files substantiating the figures provided in the exemption form were kept by the company.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 29, podatkov, ki jih predložila družba, ni bilo mogoče preveriti, saj družba ni imela nobene delovne dokumentacije, s katero bi utemeljila podatke, navedene v obrazcu za izvzetje.
Moreover, the reported figures that were tested and recalculated on the basis of the bookkeeping available at the company’s premises i.e. purchases and production volume, were found inaccurate.
Poleg tega se je ugotovila netočnost predloženih podatkov, ki so se preizkusili in ponovno izračunali na podlagi razpoložljivih knjigovodskih podatkov v prostorih družbe, tj. na podlagi nakupov in obsega proizvodnje.
Therefore, these claims are rejected.
Zato se te trditve zavrnejo.
One Malaysian company argued that the fact that the weight of the Chinese origin parts in the manufacturing cost of the bicycles was only slightly above the 60 % threshold should not lead the Commission to reject its exemption request.
Ena malezijska družba je trdila, da Komisija ne bi smela zavrniti njenega zahtevka za izvzetje zgolj zato, ker je teža delov kitajskega porekla v proizvodnih stroških koles le nekoliko presegala 60-odstotni prag.
In addition, the company submitted certain invoices for purchasing of parts which allegedly were wrongly reported as originating from the PRC when in fact they were from Indonesia.
Poleg tega je družba predložila nekatere račune za nakup delov, ki naj bi bili napačno navedeni kot s poreklom iz LRK, v resnici pa so bili iz Indonezije.
In this respect it should be noted that the thresholds set in Article (13)(2)(b) of the basic Regulation are very clear and, therefore, it is not relevant by how much the weight of the Chinese origin parts in the manufacturing cost of the bicycles exceeds the 60 % threshold but that the Chinese origin parts should represent less than 60 % in the manufacturing cost of the bicycles.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so pragi v členu (13)(2)(b) osnovne uredbe zelo jasno določeni, in torej ni pomembno, za koliko teža delov s kitajskim poreklom v proizvodnih stroških koles presega 60-odstotni prag, temveč da bi morali deli s kitajskim poreklom v proizvodnih stroških koles predstavljati manj kot 60 %.
Moreover, these invoices could not be traced back in the list of purchases provided by the company and, in addition, the value of the invoices submitted were not material as to change the original assessment of the Commission.
Poleg tega teh računov ni bilo mogoče izslediti na seznamu nakupov, ki ga je predložila družba, in tudi vrednost predloženih računov ni bila tako bistvena, da bi spremenila prvotno oceno Komisije.
In addition, the company in question argued that there is no sufficient legal basis for the denial of the company’s request for exemption as the conclusions reached are based on calculations without taking due account of the individual situation of the company in question.
Poleg tega je zadevna družba trdila, da ni ustrezne pravne podlage za zavrnitev njenega zahtevka za izvzetje, saj so sklepi temeljili na izračunih, ki niso upoštevali individualnega položaja zadevne družbe.
In response to this claim the company received further explanations reflecting the analysis in recitals 72 to 75.
Na to trditev je družba prejela dodatna pojasnila na podlagi analize v uvodnih izjavah 72 do 75.
In addition, the company claimed that the increase of imports of the product under investigation by the company in question coincides with the relaxation of the Generalised System of Preferences for Malaysia and therefore the increase in company’s exports into the Union in 2010 had no economic justification in the increase of the anti-dumping measures imposed against the PRC.
Nadalje je družba trdila, da povečanje uvoza izdelka v preiskavi s strani zadevne družbe sovpada s sprostitvijo splošnega sistema preferencialov za Malezijo, zato povečanje izvoza družbe v Unijo leta 2010 zaradi zaostritve protidampinških ukrepov, uvedenih proti LRK, ni gospodarsko upravičeno.
In response to this argument it was considered that while the relaxation of the Generalised System of Preferences rules could have contributed to the company’s motivation to export to the Union, it does not contradict the finding that the company started its operation after the anti-dumping duties against the PRC were increased and that it sourced the parts mainly from the PRC (see recital 73).
V odzivu na ta argument se je štelo, da medtem ko bi sprostitev pravil splošnega sistema preferencialov lahko prispevala k motivaciji družbe za izvoz v Unijo, to ni v nasprotju z ugotovitvijo, da je družba začela poslovati po povečanju protidampinških dajatev za LRK in da so njeni deli izvirali zlasti iz LRK (glej uvodno izjavo 73).
Therefore, the argument of the party was rejected.
Zato je bil ta argument družbe zavrnjen.
The same company also claimed that the reported data concerning the values of purchased and consumed bicycle parts were not duly verified as no distinction between purchased and consumed parts was made.
Ista družba je tudi trdila, da predloženi podatki o vrednosti kupljenih in porabljenih delov za kolesa niso bili ustrezno preverjeni, saj ni bilo razlikovanja med kupljenimi in porabljenimi deli.
In this respect it is noted that based on the figures reported by the company, the values of purchased and consumed parts were found to be identical.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da se je na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložila družba, ugotovilo, da so vrednosti kupljenih in porabljenih delov enake.
Therefore, the argument was rejected.
Zato je bil argument zavrnjen.
The company in question submitted further cost breakdowns per product model demonstrating its alleged compliance with the requirement that the parts sourced from the PRC shall not exceed 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product.
Zadevna družba je predložila dodatne razčlenitve stroškov po modelih izdelka, s katerimi je dokazala svojo domnevno skladnost z zahtevo, da deli z izvorom iz LRK ne presegajo 60 % celotne vrednosti delov sestavljenega izdelka.
This information contradicted the cost breakdowns per model collected and verified for selected models on spot for which the failure of the company to comply with the 60 % threshold was confirmed.
Te informacije so bile v nasprotju z razčlenitvami stroškov po modelih, zbranimi in preverjenimi za izbrane modele na kraju samem, ki so potrdile neskladnost družbe s 60-odstotnim pragom.
The new information submitted by the company in this respect was not backed up by any evidence and, in essence, contradicted verified information.
Nove informacije, ki jih je v zvezi s tem predložila družba, niso bile podprte z nobenimi dokazi in so bile v bistvu v nasprotju s preverjenimi informacijami.
For this reason the information was disregarded.
Zato se navedene informacije niso upoštevale.
Further, the company claimed that it acted in good faith as relying on its alleged compliance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2010 [16] laying down the applicable rules of origin.
Poleg tega je družba trdila, da je ravnala v dobri veri in domnevno v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1063/2010 [16], ki določa veljavna pravila o poreklu.
In this context it is noted that the purpose of the anti-circumvention investigation is not to verify the compliance with the applicable rules of origin.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da protisubvencijska preiskava ni namenjena preverjanju skladnosti z veljavnimi pravili o poreklu.
Such verification was not carried out in the context of the current anti-circumvention investigation and therefore the alleged compliance with the rules of origin cannot be in this case confirmed.
V okviru sedanje protisubvencijske preiskave takšno preverjanje ni bilo izvedeno in zato domnevne skladnosti s pravili o poreklu v tem primeru ni mogoče potrditi.
For this reasons, the alleged compliance with the rules of origin in this case does not exclude in any way the possibility of circumvention as defined in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation [17].
Iz navedenih razlogov domnevna skladnost s pravili o poreklu v tem primeru nikakor ne izključuje možnosti izogibanja, kot je opredeljeno v členu 13(2) osnovne uredbe [17].
Against this background, the argument is therefore rejected.
Na podlagi tega se argument zavrne.
Finally, the company claimed that the dumping margin calculation should have been carried out based on the company specific data.
Družba je še trdila, da bi bilo treba izračun stopnje dampinga izvesti na podlagi podatkov, ki so specifični za družbe.
This request was accepted as reflected in recital 75 above and the company was informed accordingly.
Ta zahtevek je bil sprejet, kot je razvidno iz uvodne izjave 75, in družba je bila o tem ustrezno obveščena.
A company from Sri Lanka disputed the relevance of the documents requested during the verification visit and therefore argued that its exemption request should not be rejected.
Neka družba iz Šrilanke je izpodbijala upoštevnost dokumentov, zahtevanih med preveritvenim obiskom, in je glede na to trdila, da njen zahtevek za izvzetje ne bi smel biti zavrnjen.