natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The main argument submitted against the USA as an analogue country was that in the USA the product concerned would be made from genetically modified soy beans, whereas this would not be the case in the PRC.
Glavni argument proti ZDA kot primerljivi državi je bil, da bi bil v ZDA zadevni izdelek proizveden iz genetsko spremenjenih sojinih zrn, kar ne bi veljalo za LRK.
The use of genetically modified (GM) soy beans would potentially result in the product being used by different users and/or processing industries.
Uporaba genetsko spremenjenih sojinih zrn bi verjetno povzročila, da bi izdelek uporabljali drugi uporabniki in/ali predelovalne industrije.
It was also mentioned by an exporting producer that the US subsidiary of the complainant would have a dominant position on the US market, resulting in inflated domestic sales prices.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi omenil, da bi imela hčerinska družba pritožnika v ZDA prevladujoč položaj na trgu ZDA, kar bi napihnilo domače prodajne cene.
In view of these comments received, the Commission sought cooperation from all known CCSPP producers in Brazil, Israel and the USA by asking them a number of key questions on their production, sales and local markets and asking them whether they would be willing to provide more detailed information on their costs and prices, if their country would be selected as an analogue country.
Glede na te prejete pripombe je Komisija pozvala k sodelovanju vse znane proizvajalce v Braziliji, Izraelu in ZDA ter jim zastavila nekaj ključnih vprašanj o njihovi proizvodnji, prodaji in lokalnih trgih ter o tem, ali bi bili pripravljeni zagotoviti več podrobnih informacij o svojih stroških in cenah, če bi bila njihova država izbrana za primerljivo državo.
Only one US producer and two Brazilian producers replied by providing the requested information and offering further cooperation.
Samo en proizvajalec iz ZDA in dva brazilska proizvajalca so predložili ustrezne informacije in izrazili pripravljenost za nadaljnje sodelovanje.
At a later stage, an Israeli producer also submitted a full questionnaire response.
Pozneje je tudi en izraelski proizvajalec predložil v celoti izpolnjen vprašalnik.
The Commission also endeavoured to obtain information on the aforementioned and other potential markets by other means.
Komisija si je tudi na druge načine prizadevala pridobiti informacije o navedenih in drugih možnih trgih.
The information thus collected was carefully analysed.
Tako pridobljene informacije so bile temeljito analizirane.
It was confirmed that the US product was predominantly made from GM soy beans, as opposed to CCSPP from the PRC, Brazil or Israel.
Potrjeno je bilo, da je izdelek ZDA pretežno iz genetsko spremenjenih sojinih zrn, v nasprotju z zadevnim izdelkom iz LRK, Brazilije ali Izraela.
However, no conclusion could be drawn with regard to the impact of that difference in main raw materials on product characteristics, uses, cost or price.
Vendar ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti učinka navedene razlike v glavnih surovinah na lastnosti, uporabo, stroške ali ceno izdelka.
Furthermore, although the Brazilian market had an import duty of 14 %, there were significant volumes of imported CCSPP in Brazil competing with the locally produced product.
Čeprav je bila uvozna dajatev za brazilski trg 14 %, je poleg tega znaten obseg uvoženega zadevnega izdelka v Braziliji konkuriral lokalno proizvedenemu izdelku.
In fact, the two Brazilian producers, which both offered cooperation, were accounting, roughly, for three quarters of the consumption in Brazil, whereas the US market appeared to be clearly dominated by two very large domestic producers, of which only one had offered cooperation.
Dejansko sta dva brazilska proizvajalca, ki sta pripravljena sodelovati, predstavljala tri četrtine potrošnje v Braziliji, pri čemer sta na trgu ZDA jasno prevladovala dva zelo velika domača proizvajalca, od katerih je bil samo eden pripravljen sodelovati.
Therefore, although the total size of the US market was bigger, there appeared to be stronger conditions of competition in Brazil, with two large domestic producers and significant imports.
Čeprav je bil celoten obseg trga ZDA večji, je bilo videti, da so konkurenčni pogoji strožji v Braziliji z dvema velikima domačima proizvajalcema in znatnim uvozom.
Moreover, overall, the domestic sales volumes of the cooperating Brazilian producers appeared to be of the same order of magnitude as the volume of sales to the EU by the sampled Chinese producers, and the product ranges comparable.
Poleg tega se je zdelo, da je obseg domače prodaje sodelujočih brazilskih proizvajalcev enako velik kot obseg prodaje vzorčenih kitajskih proizvajalcev v EU, vrste izdelka pa so primerljive.
Finally, it was found that the Brazilian domestic market was significantly bigger than the Israeli one.
Nazadnje je bilo ugotovljeno, da je brazilski domači trg znatno večji kot izraelski.
On the basis of the above, Brazil was selected as an analogue country.
Na podlagi navedenega je bila Brazilija izbrana za primerljivo državo.
This selection is confirmed.
Ta izbira je potrjena.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers was established on the basis of the verified information received from the producers in the analogue country.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe je bila normalna vrednost za proizvajalce izvoznike določena na podlagi preverjenih informacij proizvajalcev iz primerljive države.
Where product types in the domestic market of the analogue country were not made in the ordinary course of trade or where no resembling types were sold, the normal value was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Kadar vrste izdelkov na domačem trgu primerljive države niso bile prodane v običajnem poteku trgovine ali ni bil prodan noben podoben izdelek, se je normalna vrednost konstruirala v skladu s členom 2(3) in (6) osnovne uredbe.
Following the interim disclosure the calculations were further refined to also take into account comments submitted by the parties.
Po vmesnem razkritju so se izračuni dodatno izpopolnili, saj so se upoštevale tudi pripombe strani.
The exporting producers made export sales to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related trading companies located in the PRC.
Izvozne prodaje proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Unijo so potekale neposredno neodvisnim strankam ali prek povezanih trgovskih družb s sedežem v LRK.
The export price was therefore in all cases established pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.
Izvozna cena je bila zato v vseh primerih določena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe na podlagi plačanih ali plačljivih izvoznih cen.
Appropriate adjustments for discounts, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit costs, and indirect taxation were granted in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.
V zvezi s popusti, stroški prevoza, stroški zavarovanja, manipulativnimi stroški, stroški natovarjanja in s tem povezanimi stroški, stroški pakiranja, stroški kredita in posrednim obdavčenjem so se ustrezne prilagoditve odobrile v vseh primerih, v katerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da so smiselne, točne in podprte z dokazi.
The definitive dumping margins were expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid.
Dokončne stopnje dampinga so bile izražene v odstotku cene CIF meja Unije, dajatev neplačana.
For each of the three cooperating groups of exporting producers in the sample, a dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value in the analogue country with the weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 2(11) in (12) osnovne uredbe je bila za vsako od treh sodelujočih skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov v vzorcu določena stopnja dampinga na podlagi primerjave med tehtano povprečno normalno vrednostjo v primerljivi državi in tehtano povprečno izvozno ceno.
For the cooperating non-sampled companies the dumping margin was calculated as an average of the three sampled groups of companies.
Za sodelujoče nevzorčene družbe je bila stopnja dampinga izračunana kot povprečje treh vzorčenih skupin družb.
Given the high level of cooperation in the investigation, with cooperating companies representing around 90 % of all imports from the PRC during the IP, for any non-cooperating companies, the country-wide margin was established using the highest of the margins found for the sampled groups of companies.
Zaradi visoke ravni sodelovanja v preiskavi sodelujoče družbe namreč predstavljajo okrog 90 % vsega uvoza iz LRK v OP, je bila za kakršne koli nesodelujoče družbe stopnja dampinga na ravni države določena na podlagi najvišje stopnje, ki je bila ugotovljena za vzorčene skupine družb.
On this basis, the definitive levels of dumping established are as follows:
Določene dokončne stopnje dampinga so zato naslednje:
D. INJURY
D. ŠKODA
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
UVODNE UGOTOVITVE
Following the revision of the product scope (exclusion of concentrates for animal feed), one company — ADM in the Netherlands, whose production is limited to concentrates for animal feed — is no longer considered to form part of the Union industry.
Po spremembi obsega izdelka (izključitev koncentratov za krmo) se ena družba (ADM iz Nizozemske, katere proizvodnja je omejena na koncentrate za krmo) ne šteje več kot del industrije Unije. Posledično je v obdobju preiskave podobni izdelek v Uniji proizvajal samo pritožnik (Solae).
Another manufacturing site of Solae in Boudreaux, France, that manufactured and marketed only simple concentrates for animal feed closed down at the beginning of 2009.
Drugi proizvodni obrat Solae v kraju Boudreaux v Franciji, ki je proizvajal in tržil samo enostavne koncentrate za krmo, je v začetku leta 2009 ustavil proizvodnjo.
As far as the production in the EU is concerned, the investigation revealed that Solae’s manufacturing process is based exclusively on a tolling agreement with its Swiss mother company, Solae Europe.
Preiskava je v zvezi s proizvodnjo v EU razkrila, da proizvodni proces Solae temelji izključno na sporazumu s švicarsko matično družbo Solae Europe o poslih oplemenitenja.
Under this agreement Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark process the raw material provided by Solae Europe against a service fee.
V okviru tega sporazuma Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark predelujeta surovine, ki jih zagotovi Solae Europe, za kar zaračunata pristojbino za storitev.
Throughout the process, Solae Europe remains the only proprietor of the raw materials, any intermediate products and the finished goods.
V tem procesu Solae Europe ostaja edini lastnik surovin, vmesnih izdelkov in končnih izdelkov.
Given that the ownership of the raw material and finished goods remains with the principal, the tolling arrangements are legally different from other possible production arrangements.
Ker surovine in končni izdelki ostanejo v lasti naročnika, so ti sporazumi o poslih oplemenitenja pravno drugačni od drugih možnih sporazumov o proizvodnji.
However, in the current case, the value added by those companies in the EU amounts to over 50 % of the cost of manufacturing.
Vendar je v trenutnem primeru dodana vrednost navedenih družb v EU več kot 50 % proizvodnih stroškov.
This share of value added reflects, also, the technological and capital investments based in the Union.
Ta delež dodane vrednosti kaže tudi na tehnološke in kapitalske naložbe v Uniji.
The net value of such investments in the EU is significant and the industry employs an important number of persons in the Union.
Neto vrednost takih naložb v EU je znatna in industrija ima v Uniji veliko zaposlenih.
It should also be noted that the tolling operations in the EU would constitute ‘the last substantial transformation’ and, as such, confer EU origin to the products.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da bi morale biti dejavnosti poslov oplemenitenja v EU „zadnja bistvena predelava“, zaradi česar bi izdelki tudi imeli poreklo v EU.
Due to the foregoing, it was therefore concluded that an economic activity like that performed by Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark in the EU could be potentially threatened by dumping practices and could thus warrant protection irrespective of the legal nature of such activity (tolling or a different production arrangement).
Zaradi navedenega je bilo zato sklenjeno, da bi gospodarsko dejavnost, kakor jo izvajata Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark v EU, lahko ogrozil damping, zato je upravičena do zaščite ne glede na pravno naravo take dejavnosti (sporazum o poslih oplemenitenja ali druga vrsta sporazuma o proizvodnji).
In the light of the above, it was concluded to consider Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark as Union producers that form part of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) the basic Regulation.
Glede na navedeno je bilo sklenjeno, da se Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark obravnavata kot proizvajalca Unije, ki sta del industrije Unije v smislu člena 4(1) in člena 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
Following the interim disclosure, one exporter commented that tolling companies do not qualify as Union producers and have no standing in anti-dumping investigations.
Po vmesnem razkritju je en izvoznik pripomnil, da se družbe s posli oplemenitenja ne morejo opredeliti kot proizvajalci Unije in niso upravičene do protidampinških preiskav.
The exporter argued that given that the ownership of the raw material and finished goods remained with Solae Europe registered in Switzerland (i.e. outside of the EU), Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark could not be considered Union producers and did not warrant protection from the dumping practices.
Izvoznik je trdil, da glede na to, da so surovine in končni izdelki ostali v lasti družbe Solae Europe, registrirane v Švici (tj. zunaj EU), se Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark ne moreta obravnavati kot proizvajalca Unije in nista upravičena do zaščite pred dampingom.
The exporter pointed out that in previous cases, such as one concerning imports of plastic sacks and bags originating in the PRC [7], the institutions decided to exclude two Chinese companies from a sample of exporting producers because they had not themselves produced a large amount of declared exported products, but had in fact processed them for other exporting producers.
Izvoznik je opozoril, da so v prejšnjih primerih, na primer v zvezi z uvozom vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas s poreklom iz LRK [7], institucije sklenile, da izključijo dve kitajski družbi iz vzorca, ker velikega števila deklariranih izvoznih izdelkov nista proizvedli sami, ampak sta jih dejansko predelali za druge proizvajalce izvoznike.
It is noted that the situation in the case relied upon by the exporter is not comparable to the one in the present case.
Opozoriti je treba, da primer, na katerega se sklicuje izvoznik, ni primerljiv s pričujočim primerom.
First, the Chinese companies in the plastic sacks and bags case mentioned above had their own (non-tolled) output (but the sales of own produced products were too small for the companies to be included in the sample), while in the present situation Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark work exclusively with the tolling arrangement.
Prvič, kitajske družbe v navedeni zadevi vreč in vrečk iz plastičnih mas so imele svojo (na posle oplemenitenja nevezano) proizvodnjo (vendar je bila prodaja izdelkov, ki so jih proizvedle družbe same, premajhna, da bi se vključile v vzorec), v pričujočem primeru pa Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark delujeta izključno v okviru sporazuma o poslih oplemenitenja.
In addition, while Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark are fully owned by Solae Europe, the investigation of the Chinese companies excluded from the sample did not establish any ownership relation with other exporting producers for which they processed the products.
Poleg tega ima družba Solae Europe popolno lastništvo nad Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark, preiskava kitajskih družb, izključenih iz vzorca, pa ni pokazala nobene lastniške povezave z drugimi proizvajalci izvozniki, za katere so predelovale izdelke.
The exporter in its submission also referred to another past investigation, namely that concerning imports of glycine originating in the PRC [8], where the Commission treated some Chinese companies as traders rather than producers, as the activity they carried out was found not to qualify as production.
Izvoznik se je v svojem stališču skliceval tudi na drugo preteklo preiskavo, in sicer v zvezi z uvozom glicina s poreklom iz LRK [8], v kateri je Komisija obravnavala nekatere kitajske družbe kot trgovce namesto kot proizvajalce, ker je ugotovila, da se dejavnost, ki so jo izvajale, ne more opredeliti kot proizvodnja.
It is noted in this regard that the glycine case does not support the exporter’s argument either, as in that case the exporting Chinese companies simply conducted some processing operations which did not change the chemical composition or the physical characteristics of the product under consideration.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da tudi primer glicina ne podkrepi trditve izvoznika, saj so v navedenem primeru kitajske družbe izvoznice opravile samo nekaj predelovalnih postopkov, ki niso spremenili kemične sestave ali fizikalnih lastnosti obravnavanega izdelka.
This is a completely different situation from the one at hand where the operations conducted by the EU companies convert soy beans or soy flakes into soy proteins and not only change the chemical composition or the physical characteristics of the material but also add significant value to the final product.
To je popolnoma različna situacija od sedanje, pri kateri dejavnosti družb EU predelajo sojina zrna ali kosmiče v sojine beljakovine in pri tem ne spremenijo samo kemične sestave ali fizikalnih lastnosti izdelka, ampak končnemu izdelku tudi dajo znatno dodano vrednost.
The exporter also argued that the centre of the decision making process for the entire tolling production in the Union is exclusively within a non-EU company and that the entire fate of the tolling companies is completely and exclusively dependant on their Swiss mother company.
Izvoznik je tudi trdil, da je središče odločanja za celotno proizvodnjo oplemenitenja v Uniji izključno znotraj družbe, ki ima sedež zunaj EU, in da je usoda družb s posli oplemenitenja v celoti in izključno odvisna od švicarske matične družbe.
The exporter added that in a different case, concerning imports of vinyl acetate originating in the USA [9], the Commission excluded an EU producer from the definition of the Union industry due to its relationship with a company in a targeted country.
Izvoznik je dodal, da je v drugem primeru v zvezi z uvozom vinilacetata s poreklom iz ZDA [9] Komisija izključila proizvajalca EU iz opredelitve industrije Unije zaradi povezanosti z družbo v ciljni državi.
Another party also suggested that in analysing the issue of tolling arrangement and its qualification as production, issues like placement of headquarters, centre of interest and commitment to the EU market should be analysed in a manner similar to the analysis of related companies while defining the Union industry.
Tudi ena druga stran je predlagala, da bi bilo pri analizi vprašanja sporazuma o poslih oplemenitenja in uvrstitvi v proizvodnjo treba analizirati vprašanja, kot so lokacija sedeža, središče interesa in zavezanost k trgu EU, na podoben način, kot se analizirajo povezane družbe pri opredelitvi industrije Unije.
Indeed, Solae as a group has structural links with its Swiss mother company and further corporate links with US companies.
Solae kot skupina dejansko ima strukturne povezave s švicarsko matično družbo in nadaljnje podjetniške povezave z družbami iz ZDA.
It is not a novelty in anti-dumping proceedings that companies with strong EU presence have such structural, capital or corporate links outside the EU.
V antidampinških postopkih ni redkost, da imajo družbe z močno prisotnostjo v EU take strukturne, kapitalske ali poslovne povezave zunaj EU.
However, such structural and corporate links outside the EU cannot undermine the conclusion that complainants qualify as EU producers.
Vendar take strukturne in poslovne povezave zunaj EU ne morejo omajati sklepa, da se pritožniki lahko obravnavajo kot proizvajalci EU.
It is noted that such arguments would be relevant for the purposes of Article 4(1)a of the basic Regulation and the definition of the Union industry only in case Solae Europe would be a company in a targeted country, i.e. the PRC in this case.
Opozoriti je treba, da bi bili taki argumenti relevantni za namene člena 4(1)a osnovne uredbe in za opredelitev industrije Unije samo v primeru, če bi bila Solae Europe družba v ciljni državi, tj. v LRK.
This is clearly not the case, and consequently the exporter’s argument is irrelevant.
Ker to očitno ne drži, je trditev izvoznika nepomembna.
In addition, it is reiterated that the ownership of the material used and/or of the finished product is not the decisive criterion in order to define a Union producer.
Poleg tega je treba ponovno poudariti, da lastništvo nad uporabljenimi surovinami in/ali končnim izdelkom ni odločilno merilo pri opredelitvi proizvajalca Unije.
While tolling is legally different from other production arrangements, toll-producing companies may be considered Union producers.
Čeprav so posli oplemenitenja pravno drugačni od drugih sporazumov o proizvodnji, je družbe s posli oplemenitenja mogoče obravnavati kot proizvajalce Unije.
This approach is consistent with earlier practice of the institutions, like for example in the expiry review concerning imports of furfuryl alcohol originating in the PRC [10].
Ta pristop je skladen s prejšnjimi praksami institucij, na primer v primeru pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepov v zvezi z uvozom furfuril alkohola s poreklom iz LRK [10].
It is reiterated that in the current case the value added by the companies in the EU amounts to over 50 % of the cost of manufacturing.
Ponovno se poudarja, da je v trenutnem primeru dodana vrednost družb v EU več kot 50 % proizvodnih stroškov.
This share of value added reflects the technological and capital investments based in the Union.
Ta delež dodane vrednosti kaže na tehnološke in kapitalske naložbe v Uniji.
In conclusion, Solae Belgium and Solae Denmark are considered Union producers that form part of the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) the basic Regulation and will be thereafter referred to as the ‘Union industry’.
Družbi Solae Belgium in Solae Denmark se torej štejeta za proizvajalca Unije, ki sta del industrije Unije v smislu člena 4(1) in člena 5(4) osnovne uredbe, zato se bo v nadaljevanju zanju uporabljal izraz „industrija Unije“.
The total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation was established on the basis of the questionnaire reply of the complainant.
Celotna proizvodnja Unije v smislu člena 4(1) osnovne uredbe je bila določena na podlagi izpolnjenega vprašalnika pritožnika.
Given that the Union industry comprises only one producer, the data below is presented in an indexed format in order to preserve confidentiality, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Ker industrija Unije zajema samo enega proizvajalca, so spodnji podatki predstavljeni v obliki indeksa, da se v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe ohrani zaupnost.
The Union consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Union industry’s tolled output destined for the Union market, the import volumes on the Union market obtained from Eurostat, and estimates by the complainant.
Potrošnja Unije je bila določena na podlagi obsega prodaje proizvodnje Unije v okviru poslov oplemenitenja in namenjene na trg Unije, na podlagi obsega uvoza na trg Unije po podatkih Eurostata in na podlagi ocen pritožnika.
The CN codes covering certain concentrated soy protein products cover a broader range of products, and not only the product under investigation.
Oznake KN, pod katere se uvrščajo nekateri proizvodi iz koncentriranih sojinih beljakovin, zajemajo celo vrsto izdelkov in ne samo izdelek v preiskavi.