natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The sole purpose of requesting this information was to allow the Commission to identify those exporting producers that would have been in a position to cooperate and request IT during the original investigation but considered themselves to have been discouraged from doing so.
Te informacije so se zahtevale samo z namenom, da bi Komisija lahko določila tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi lahko sodelovali v IO in jo zahtevali med prvotno preiskavo, vendar so menili, da so bili od tega odvrnjeni.
A deadline of 30 days was considered to be appropriate to reply to a request for a simple statement and very basic figures and cannot be regarded as imposing a disproportionate administrative burden.
nevni rok je veljal za primeren za odgovor na zahtevo po preprosti izjavi in najosnovnejših podatkih, zato ni mogoče šteti, da je bilo z njimi naloženo nesorazmerno upravno breme.
The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese exporting producer argued that by requesting the information mentioned in recital 15 above, the Commission imposed conditions on Chinese exporting producers, although IT should be granted as rule pursuant to Articles 6.10 and 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Kitajska trgovinska zbornica in kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik sta trdila, da je Komisija z zahtevo po informacijah, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 15, za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike uvedla pogoje, čeprav bi bilo treba IO v skladu s členoma 6.10 in 9.3 Protidampinškega sporazuma WTO praviloma odobriti.
This approach was contrary to the recommendations of the DSB reports and these parties invited the Commission to contact Chinese exporting producers ex officio and indicate they will be granted IT.
Ta pristop je bil v nasprotju s priporočili iz poročil organa za reševanje sporov in te strani so pozvale Komisijo, naj po uradni dolžnosti stopi v stik s kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki in jih obvesti, da jim bo odobrila IO.
In this respect, the Commission considers that, by publishing the Notice of Initiation which was sent to all known Chinese exporting producers and their trade association and national authorities, the Commission has contacted all Chinese exporting producers inviting them to come forward within 30 days, should they have exported during the original investigation period and not made themselves known during the original investigation.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da je z objavo obvestila o začetku, ki je bilo poslano vsem znanim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, njihovim trgovinskim združenjem in nacionalnim organom, stopila v stik z vsemi kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki in jih pozvala, naj se javijo v roku 30 dni, če so izvažali v obdobju prvotne preiskave in se v prvotni preiskavi niso javili.
This latter question should not be considered as a ‘condition’ in the sense of a ‘test’ as presented by the said parties, but rather as a statement of fact showing that they were actually concerned by the original investigation.
Slednje vprašanje se ne bi smelo obravnavati kot „pogoj“ v smislu „preskusa“, kot so ga predstavile navedene strani, temveč kot navedbo dejstva, ki kaže, da jih je prvotna preiskava dejansko zadevala.
Finally, it should be noted that questions related to exported products are requested for the purpose of verifying whether the sample originally chosen needed to be amended and are not related to the issue of IT.
Nazadnje je treba omeniti, da se podatki o izvoženih izdelkih ne zahtevajo z namenom preverjanja, ali bi bilo prvotno izbiro vzorca treba spremeniti, in niso povezana z odobritvijo IO.
This claim was therefore rejected.
Zato je bila ta zahteva zavrnjena.
Of the 15 companies that came forward following the publication of the Notice of Initiation and made enquiries within the deadline:
Od 15 družb, ki so se javile po objavi obvestila o začetku in ki so v roku opravile poizvedbe,
Ten companies were exporting producers that had already come forward and cooperated with the original investigation.
je bilo deset družb proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so se javili in sodelovali že v prvotni preiskavi.
This showed that they had not been discouraged from cooperating and requesting IT in the original investigation and their situation could therefore not be re-examined in the context of the current review; one of these 10 companies which requested a review of its current duties was invited to submit a review request to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
To kaže, da niso bili odvrnjeni od sodelovanja in zahtevanja IO v prvotni preiskavi, zato njihovega položaja v okviru trenutnega pregleda ni bilo mogoče ponovno preučiti; ena od teh desetih družb, ki je zahtevala pregled svojih trenutnih dajatev, je bila pozvana, naj Komisiji predloži zahtevek za pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe,
One company was a new exporting producer (i.e. it had not exported to the EU during the original investigation).
je bila ena družba nov proizvajalec izvoznik (tj. med prvotno preiskavo še ni izvažal v EU).
This company was therefore not in a position to cooperate and request IT in the original investigation for that reason.
Ta družba zato ni mogla sodelovati in zahtevati IO v prvotni preiskavi.
It was informed of the procedures for claiming New Exporting Producer Treatment pursuant to Article 2 of the definitive Regulation.
Obveščena je bila o postopkih za zahtevo za obravnavo novega proizvajalca izvoznika v skladu s členom 2 dokončne uredbe,
Two were considered not to be exporting producers but trading companies so they were informed that they were not concerned by this review.
dve nista bili upoštevani kot proizvajalca izvoznika, ampak kot trgovski družbi, zato sta bili obveščeni, da nista zajeti v tem pregledu,
Two exporting producers stated that they complied with the criteria and requested that their situation be examined.
dva proizvajalca izvoznika sta navedla, da ustrezata merilom in sta zahtevala, da se njuno stanje preuči.
However, one of these companies subsequently withdrew its application.
Vendar je ena od teh družb nato umaknila svojo vlogo.
The companies having made enquiries were given the opportunity to comment on the information provided to them.
Družbe, ki so opravile poizvedbe, so lahko komentirale posredovane informacije.
The exporting producer stating that it complied with the criteria and requesting that its situation be examined was found to fall within the criteria laid down in point 1 of the Notice of Initiation.
Za proizvajalca izvoznika, ki je navedel, da izpolnjuje merila, in zahteval, da se njegov položaj preuči, je bilo ugotovljeno, da ustreza merilom iz točke 1 obvestila o začetku.
This exporting producer also requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation claiming that if it would not have been discouraged from cooperating during the original investigation it would have requested such treatment.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je prav tako zahteval individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe in trdil, da bi zahteval tovrstno obravnavo, če ne bi bil odvrnjen od sodelovanja med prvotno preiskavo.
Taking into account that during the original investigation, all of the exporting producers who had made such a request were individually examined, for reasons of equal treatment, its request was accepted.
Ob upoštevanju, da so bili med prvotno preiskavo vsi proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so vložili takšno zahtevo, obravnavani individualno, je bila zaradi enakopravnega obravnavanja njegova zahteva sprejeta.
A Notice was published on 6 June 2012 [6] announcing the review of the current situation for this exporting producer, Bulten Fasteners (China) Co., Ltd (‘BFC’).
Obvestilo je bilo objavljeno 6. junija 2012 [6], v katerem je bil napovedan pregled trenutnega stanja za tega proizvajalca izvoznika: Bulten Fasteners (Kitajska) Co., Ltd („BFC“).
The exported quantities of this exporting producer during the IP amounted to less than 0,4 % of the total exports from the PRC during the IP.
Obseg izvoza tega proizvajalca izvoznika je med OP znašal manj kot 0,4 % celotnega izvoza iz LRK v OP.
In view of this, the Commission considered that there was no need to modify the original sample of exporting producers.
Glede na to je Komisija menila, da prvotnega vzorca proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni treba spremeniti.
A questionnaire was sent to the exporting producer in the PRC and its related companies in the EU involved in the resale of the product concerned during the original IP.
Proizvajalcu izvozniku v LRK in povezanim družbam v EU, ki so bile v prvotni OP udeležene pri nadaljnji prodaji zadevnega izdelka, je bil poslan vprašalnik.
The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping and carried out verifications at the premises of the following related companies:
Komisija je zbrala in preverila vse informacije, potrebne za ugotovitev dampinga, in opravila preveritvene obiske v prostorih naslednjih družb:
Bulten Sweden AB, Göteborg, Sweden,
Bulten Sweden AB, Göteborg, Švedska,
Bulten GmbH, Bergkamen, Germany.
Bulten, Bergkamen, Nemčija.
The Commission concluded that BFC should be granted IT in accordance with the recommendations concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the DSB reports.
Komisija je sklenila, da se družbi BFC odobri IO v skladu s priporočili v zvezi s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v poročilih DSB.
Certain aspect of the dumping determination in the fasteners investigations
Nekateri vidiki ugotovitve dampinga v preiskavah o pritrdilnih elementih
This section sets out the reassessed findings of the original investigation regarding the following recommendations and rulings of the Reports that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to certain aspects of the dumping determination in the fasteners original investigation.
V tem razdelku so določene ponovno ocenjene ugotovitve iz prvotne preiskave glede naslednjih priporočil in sklepov iz poročil, v katerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da EU ni ravnala v skladu s členi 6.4, 6.2 in 2.4 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO v zvezi z nekaterimi vidiki ugotovitve dampinga v prvotni preiskavi o pritrdilnih elementih.
In the context of the open dialogue held with some Chinese exporting producers and the Chamber of Commerce, more detailed information regarding the product characteristics of the products sold by the Indian cooperating producer was provided to the parties in order to address the recommendations of the WTO DSB regarding Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, as mentioned in recitals 28 to 53 above.
V okviru odprtega dialoga med nekaterimi kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki in trgovinsko zbornico so bile stranem posredovane podrobnejše informacije glede značilnosti izdelka za izdelke, ki jih prodaja indijski sodelujoči proizvajalec, da bi se odzvali na priporočila organa DSB za reševanje sporov glede členov 6.4, 6.2 in 2.4 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, kot je omenjeno v uvodnih izjavah 28 in 53.
This information covered in particular the product characteristics which were found to be pertinent in the determination of the normal value and that were used in the comparison with the product concerned, i.e. the fact that the Indian domestic sales have been divided into ‘standard’ sales and ‘special’ sales and the strength class of each transaction has been identified.
Te informacije so zajemale zlasti značilnosti izdelka, ki so bile pomembne pri določanju normalne vrednosti in so se uporabile pri primerjavi z zadevnim izdelkom, tj. dejstvo, da je bila indijska domača prodaja razdeljena na „standardno“ in „posebno“ prodajo ter da je bil določen trdnostni razred za vsako transakcijo.
A normal value per kg was then calculated for each strength class as identified in the PCN table.
Normalna vrednost na kg je bila nato izračunana za vsak trdnostni razred, kot je določen v preglednici s kontrolnimi številkami izdelka.
The Commission concentrated on two crucial elements of comparison, namely strength class and standard versus special fasteners, as indicated in recitals 48 to 50 of the definitive Regulation.
Komisija se je osredotočila na dva ključna elementa primerjave, in sicer na trdnostni razred ter na primerjavo med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi, kot je določeno v uvodnih izjavah 48 in 50 dokončne uredbe.
The distinction between special vs standard was added as a new element of comparison during the investigation and the strength class was used as the other main comparison criterion as submitted by most of the Chinese exporting producers themselves during the original investigation.
Razlika med posebnimi in standardnimi je bila med preiskavo dodana kot nov element primerjave, trdnostni razred pa je bil uporabljen kot drugo glavno merilo primerjave, kot jih je večina kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov predložila med prvotno preiskavo.
As mentioned in recital 56 of the definitive Regulation, standard fasteners produced in the analogue country could be compared with the fasteners exported to the EU by the sampled PRC producers as they were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as products exported from the PRC.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 56 dokončne uredbe, je standardne pritrdilne elemente, ki so proizvedeni v primerljivi državi, mogoče primerjati s pritrdilnimi elementi, ki jih v EU izvažajo vzorčeni proizvajalci iz LRK, saj se je izkazalo, da imajo enake fizikalne in tehnične značilnosti kot izdelki, ki se izvažajo iz LRK.
The normal value was expressed ex-works, adjusted to take account of the price effect of the quality control step performed by the Indian producer which was not performed in China.
Normalna vrednost je bila izražena kot franko tovarna in prilagojena tako, da se upošteva cenovni učinek koraka nadzora kakovosti, ki ga je izvedel indijski proizvajalec, ki pa ni bil izveden na Kitajskem.
The result was therefore two lists of normal values in Chinese Yuan (CNY) per kg by strength class, one for standard fasteners and one for special fasteners.
Rezultat sta tako bila dva seznama normalnih vrednosti v kitajskem juanu (CNY) na kg po trdnostnem razredu, eden za standardne in eden za posebne pritrdilne elemente.
Information disclosure note of 30 May 2012
Obvestilu o razkritju informacij z dne 30. maja 2012
On 30 May 2012 additional information was disclosed to all interested parties regarding the product types used for the purposes of comparing normal value and export price.
Dne 30. maja 2012 so bile vsem zainteresiranim stranem razkrite dodatne informacije o vrstah izdelkov, ki se uporabljajo za primerjavo normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene.
As stated in the Notice of Initiation, more precise information regarding the product characteristics which were found to be pertinent in the determination of the normal value was provided to all interested parties.
Kot je navedeno v obvestilu o začetku, so bile natančnejše informacije o značilnostih izdelka, ki so bile pomembne pri določanju normalne vrednosti, predložene vsem zainteresiranim stranem.
The content of the information disclosure note related to the normal value which was determined based on the prices of the product concerned sold on the domestic market by the Indian cooperating producer.
Vsebina obvestila o razkritju informacij se je nanašala na normalno vrednost, ki je bila določena na podlagi cen zadevnega izdelka, ki ga je na domačem trgu prodajal indijski sodelujoči proizvajalec.
According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET had to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe je bilo treba normalno vrednost za proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jim TGO ni bila odobrena, določiti na podlagi cen ali konstruirane vrednosti v primerljivi državi.
Two Indian producers agreed to cooperate by replying to a questionnaire.
Za sodelovanje sta se odločila dva indijska proizvajalca, tako da sta odgovorila na vprašalnik.
The data submitted in their questionnaire replies were verified at the premises of these two companies.
Podatki, navedeni v izpolnjenih vprašalnikih, so bili preverjeni v prostorih teh dveh družb.
However, only one of the companies provided sufficiently detailed data to be used as a basis for establishing normal value.
Vendar je samo ena od obeh družb zagotovila dovolj podrobne podatke, ki bi se lahko uporabili kot osnova za ugotovitev normalne vrednosti.
As mentioned in recital 90 of the definitive Regulation, ‘a number of importers and exporters questioned the appropriateness of using the data from the latter Indian producer on the grounds that: (i) the quantity produced and sold in the Indian domestic market by this producer would allegedly not be representative of the quantity exported from the PRC to the Community; and (ii) this Indian producer has alleged commercial links with one of the Community producers supporting the complaint. In this respect, it should be noted that: (i) the sales volume of the Indian producer were considered sufficiently representative to allow for the establishment of reliable normal, values; and (ii) the fact that the analogue country producer has links to a Community producer supporting the complaint does not make the choice of that analogue country unreasonable. It was also noted that these links were established after the IP. Given the above and the absence of cooperation from other third country producers, the choice of India as analogue country was considered reasonable’.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 90 dokončne uredbe, je „več uvoznikov in izvoznikov podvomilo v primernost uporabe podatkov slednjega indijskega proizvajalca, ker (i) količina izdelkov, ki jo ta proizvajalec proizvaja in prodaja na indijskem domačem trgu, domnevno ni reprezentativna za količino, izvoženo iz LRK v Skupnost, in ker (ii) je ta indijski proizvajalec domnevno trgovinsko povezan z enim od proizvajalcev Skupnosti, ki podpira pritožbo. V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da (i) se je obseg prodaje indijskega proizvajalca štel za dovolj reprezentativnega, da se omogoči vzpostavitev zanesljivih normalnih vrednosti, in da (ii) zaradi dejstva, da je proizvajalec iz primerljive države povezan s proizvajalcem Skupnosti, ki podpira pritožbo, izbira navedene primerljive države ni neprimerna. Prav tako je bilo poudarjeno, da sta se proizvajalca povezala po obdobju preiskave. Glede na navedeno in glede na nesodelovanje drugih proizvajalcev iz tretjih držav je izbira Indije za primerljivo državo štela za primerno“.
Given the conditions of competition and openness of the Indian market, and the fact that the cooperating Indian producer sold product types comparable to those exported by the PRC exporting producers, it was concluded that India was a suitable market economy third country within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Glede na konkurenčne pogoje in odprtost indijskega trga ter dejstva, da je sodelujoči indijski proizvajalec prodajal vrste izdelkov, primerljive z izdelki, ki jih izvažajo proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK, je bilo sklenjeno, da je Indija primerna tretja država s tržnim gospodarstvom v smislu člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe.
The information disclosure note stated that the data regarding domestic sales covered the investigation period but without the Product Control Number (‘PCN’).
V obvestilu o razkritju informacij je bilo navedeno, da so podatki glede domače prodaje zajemali obdobje preiskave, vendar brez kontrolne številke izdelka („PCN“).
The Indian producer, however, was able to identify the strength class of the fastener sold, and also whether that fastener was ‘standard’ or ‘special’ as defined in the definitive Regulation.
Indijski proizvajalec pa je lahko določil trdnostni razred prodajanega pritrdilnega elementa in tudi to, ali je bil pritrdilni element „standardni“ ali „posebni“, kot je določeno v dokončni uredbi.
The need to distinguish between standard and special fasteners had not been identified at the start of the investigation when the PCN had been created.
Potreba po razlikovanju med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi ni bila določena na začetku preiskave, ko je bila ustvarjena kontrolna številka izdelka.
However, the Commission noted that this distinction affected price comparability and therefore this data was requested from the Indian producer and was provided.
Vendar je Komisija poudarila, da je to razlikovanje vplivalo na primerljivost cen, zato se je od indijskega proizvajalca zahtevalo te podatke, ki jih je tudi zagotovil.
Indian domestic sales were therefore divided into ‘standard’ sales and ‘special’ sales and then the strength class of each transaction was identified.
Indijska domača prodaja je bila tako razdeljena na „standardno“ in „posebno“ prodajo, nato pa je bil določen trdnostni razred za vsako transakcijo.
A normal value per kg was calculated for each strength class as originally identified in the PCN table.
Normalna vrednost na kg je bila izračunana za vsak trdnostni razred, kot je bil prvotno določen v razpredelnici s kontrolnimi številkami izdelka.
The remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not used, not only because the Indian producer was not able to provide the data at this level of detail, but also for the following reasons:
Preostale značilnosti prvotne PCN niso bile uporabljene, ne samo zato, ker indijski proizvajalec tako natančnih podatkov ni mogel zagotoviti, ampak tudi iz naslednjih razlogov:
diameter and length were not considered relevant because the analysis was performed on the basis of weight, thus automatically taking into account any differences resulting from different diameter or length of the fastener,
premer in dolžina nista bila upoštevana kot pomembna, saj je bila izvedena analiza na podlagi teže, zato so se samodejno upoštevale vse razlike zaradi različnega premera ali dolžine pritrdilnega elementa,
there was no indication that there were any differences in terms of chrome on coating or coating in general — in essence an indicator of galvanisation — between the Indian producer’s products and Chinese fasteners,
nič ni kazalo na to, da obstajajo kakršne koli razlike glede kroma na premazu ali premaza na splošno – kar je v bistvu pokazatelj galvanizacije – med izdelki indijskega proizvajalca in kitajskimi pritrdilnimi elementi,
in respect of the only other remaining PCN element, the CN code, it was considered that it would not be a reliable indicator since the Chinese or Indian authorities do not distinguish between the 10 CN codes used to define the product concerned as do the EU authorities.
glede na edini preostali element PCN, oznake KN, se je štelo, da ne bi bil zanesljiv pokazatelj, saj kitajske ali indijske oblasti ne razlikujejo med desetimi oznakami KN, ki se uporabljajo za določanje zadevnega izdelka, kot oblasti EU.
The Commission therefore concentrated on two crucial differences between products: strength class, on the one hand; and standard vs special fasteners, which is an indicator of customer differences and quality differences, on the other hand.
Komisija se je zato osredotočila na dve ključni razliki med izdelki: trdnostni razred na eni strani, na drugi pa razlika med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi, kar je pokazatelj razlik med strankami in razlik v kakovosti.
The normal value was expressed ex-works, minus an adjustment to remove the price effect of the quality control performed by the Indian producer which was not performed in China.
Normalna vrednost je bila izražena kot franko tovarna brez prilagoditve, da se ne bi upošteval cenovni učinek nadzora kakovosti, ki ga je izvedel indijski proizvajalec, ki pa ni bil izveden na Kitajskem.
The Commission informed all interested parties that the normal value could not be disclosed as it concerns the confidential price of a single Indian producer on the domestic market.
Komisija je vse zainteresirane strani obvestila, da normalne vrednosti ne more razkriti, saj se nanaša na zaupno ceno enega samega indijskega proizvajalca na domačem trgu.