natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe izbrala vzorec na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza, ki ga je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
The sample thus selected initially consisted of two groups of related companies, representing, inter alia, five individual producers and accounting for 40 % to 50 % of the export volume of the product concerned from the PRC to the EU during the investigation period.
Tako izbran vzorec je bil prvotno sestavljen iz dveh skupin povezanih družb, ki so med drugim zastopale pet posameznih proizvajalcev ter pomenile 40 % do 50 % obsega izvoza zadevnega izdelka iz LRK v EU v obdobju preiskave.
After indications had been received that these two groups would possibly need to be treated as a single entity for the purpose of imposing an anti-dumping duty (see recital 41), the sample was expanded by including a third group of exporting producers, thus accounting for 45 % to 60 % of Chinese imports.
Po prejetju podatkov, da bi se ti dve skupini morda morali obravnavati kot en subjekt zaradi uvedbe protidampinške dajatve (glej uvodno izjavo 41), se je vzorec razširil z vključitvijo tretje skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov in tako predstavljal 45 % do 60 % kitajskega uvoza.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned and the Chinese authorities were consulted on the initial selection as well as the later expansion of the sample.
V skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe je bilo z zadevnimi stranmi in kitajskimi organi opravljeno posvetovanje o prvotni izbiri in poznejši razširitvi vzorca.
Two related exporting producers objected to the expansion of the sample as they argued that, if the sample had to be expanded, they would qualify better as a third group of exporting producers to be included in the sample.
Dva povezana proizvajalca izvoznika sta nasprotovala razširitvi vzorca, saj sta trdila, da bi v primeru razširitve vzorca bolj sodila v tretjo skupino proizvajalcev izvoznikov v vzorcu.
It should be underlined that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the proposed new sample consisted of the three groups of exporting producers with the largest EU sales volumes of the product concerned during the IP.
Treba je poudariti, da je bil v skladu z določbami člena 17(1) osnovne uredbe predlagani novi vzorec sestavljen iz treh skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov z največjim obsegom prodaje zadevnega izdelka v OP v EU.
Moreover, the EU sales volumes of the product concerned during the IP by the two related producers which claimed that they should have been selected as a third group were very small, representing less than 10 % of such volumes of the selected third group.
Poleg tega je bil v OP obseg prodaje zadevnega izdelka v EU obeh povezanih proizvajalcev, ki sta trdila, da bi morala biti izbrana v tretjo skupino, zelo majhen in je predstavljal manj kot 10 % obsega prodaje izbrane tretje skupine.
Therefore it was confirmed that the representativity of the expanded sample was best served by the proposed three groups.
Zato je bilo potrjeno, da je reprezentativnost razširjenega vzorca najboljše zastopana s predlaganimi tremi skupinami.
No further objections were raised.
Predložene niso bile nobene dodatne pripombe.
Seven unrelated importers, accounting for 20 % of the total imports of the product concerned into the Union, agreed to be included in the sample.
Sedem nepovezanih uvoznikov, ki so predstavljali 20 % skupnega uvoza zadevnega izdelka v Unijo, se je strinjalo z vključitvijo v vzorec.
Three importers, accounting for around 17 % of the total imports from the PRC and almost 90 % of imports of the cooperating importers, were selected for the sample.
V vzorec so bili izbrani trije uvozniki, ki so predstavljali približno 17 % skupnega uvoza iz LRK in skoraj 90 % uvoza sodelujočih uvoznikov.
One of the sampled importers stopped its cooperation and did not provide a questionnaire reply.
Eden od vzorčenih uvoznikov je prekinil sodelovanje in ni predložil izpolnjenega vprašalnika.
QUESTIONNAIRE REPLIES AND VERIFICATIONS
IZPOLNJENI VPRAŠALNIKI IN PREVERITVE
In order to allow the sampled groups of exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent them MET/IT claim forms.
Da bi vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK lahko predložile zahtevek za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“) ali individualno obravnavo („IO“), če tako želijo, jim je Komisija poslala obrazce zahtevka za TGO ali IO.
In this respect, two sampled groups of companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, whereas the remaining sampled group of companies requested IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem sta dve vzorčeni skupini družb zahtevali TGO v skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe, preostala vzorčena skupina družb pa je zahtevala IO v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
MET/IT claim forms were also sent to non-sampled (groups of) exporting producers which had stated their intention to request individual examination as per Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Obrazci zahtevka za TGO/IO so bili poslani tudi nevzorčenim skupinam/proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so izrazili svoj namen, da bodo zahtevali individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers as well as to the non-sampled exporting producers which had stated their intention to request individual examination, to the complainant and the other known Union producer, to the sampled importers, and to all known users.
Komisija je poslala vprašalnike vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom in nevzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so izrazili svoj namen, da bodo zahtevali individualno preiskavo, pritožniku in drugemu znanemu proizvajalcu Unije, vzorčenim uvoznikom ter vsem znanim uporabnikom.
After having requested information from producers in the possible analogue countries Brazil, Israel and the United States of America (‘the USA’), questionnaires were also sent to the producers that had offered cooperation in Brazil and Israel for the purpose of establishing normal value for companies to which MET could not be granted (see recitals 60 to 64 below).
Potem ko so bili za informacije zaprošeni proizvajalci v morebitnih primerljivih državah Braziliji, Izraelu in Združenih državah Amerike („ZDA“), so bili vprašalniki poslani tudi proizvajalcem, ki bili v Braziliji in Izraelu pripravljeni sodelovati pri določanju normalne vrednosti za družbe, ki jim ni bilo mogoče odobriti TGO (glej uvodne izjave 60 do 64).
Full questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled groups of exporting producers in the PRC, one Brazilian producer, one Israeli producer, one Union producer (with one production facility in Belgium and another one in Denmark), two (out of three) sampled importers and four users in the EU.
V celoti izpolnjene vprašalnike so predložile tri vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK, en brazilski proizvajalec, en izraelski proizvajalec, en proizvajalec Unije (z enim proizvodnim obratom v Belgiji in drugim na Danskem), dva (od treh) vzorčena uvoznika ter štirje uporabniki v EU.
Another Brazilian producer submitted an incomplete reply.
Drugi brazilski proizvajalec je predložil nepopolno izpolnjen vprašalnik.
In addition, claims for individual examination (IE) as per Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation were received from one non-sampled exporting producer (‘applicant A’) and one group of related non-sampled exporting producers (jointly ‘applicant B’) [4].
Poleg tega sta zahtevek za individualno preiskavo (IP) v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe predložila en nevzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik („vložnik A“) in ena skupina povezanih nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (skupaj „vložnik B“) [4].
After having analysed the information submitted by the sampled parties, as well as these requests including duly completed questionnaires, it was considered that the number of (groups of) exporting producers to be investigated in the sample alone was so large that additional IEs would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time.
Po analizi informacij, ki so jih predložile vzorčene strani, in teh zahtevkov, vključno z ustrezno izpolnjenimi vprašalniki, se je štelo, da je že število (skupin) proizvajalcev izvoznikov v vzorcu za preiskavo tako veliko, da bi bile dodatne IP neupravičeno obremenjujoče in bi preprečile pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
Therefore, the applicants were informed that their request for an individual examination was rejected.
Zato sta bila vložnika obveščena, da je njun zahtevek za individualno preiskavo zavrnjen.
Applicant B contested this determination not to consider its request for IE.
Vložnik B je odločitvi, da se njegovega zahtevka za IP ne bo obravnavalo, nasprotoval.
It submitted that this refusal would be contrary to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), as interpreted recently by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the Fasteners case [5].
Trdil je, da bi bila ta zavrnitev v nasprotju s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe in členom 6.10 protidampinškega sporazuma, kakor ga je nedavno raztolmačil Organ STO za reševanje sporov v zadevi pritrdilnih elementov [5].
Secondly, such refusal would be contrary to the fundamental principle of proportionality.
Taka zavrnitev bi poleg tega kršila osnovno načelo sorazmernosti.
As concerns the first argument, Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation as well as Article 6.10 of the ADA explicitly allow the investigating authority not to consider requests for IE if the number of exporters and/or producers involved is so large as to make such a determination impracticable.
Kar zadeva prvo trditev, člen 17(3) osnovne uredbe in člen 6.10 protidampinškega sporazuma izrecno dovoljujeta, da preiskovalni organ ne obravnava zahtevkov za IP, če je število vključenih izvoznikov in/ali proizvajalcev tako veliko, da bi bilo tako ugotavljanje neizvedljivo.
The WTO Appellate Body Report in the Fasteners case clarified that timely requests for IE should ‘as a rule’ be accepted unless this would be ‘unduly burdensome’ [6].
Poročilo pritožbenega organa v zadevi pritrdilnih elementov je potrdilo, da je pravočasne zahtevke za IP „praviloma“ treba sprejeti, razen če preiskavo „neupravičeno obremenijo“ [6].
In this case, the verification of the questionnaire replies and the replies to the MET claim forms of the applicants for IE would entail on-the-spot investigations at one company (applicant A) and two other companies (those forming part of applicant B).
V tem primeru bi preverjanje izpolnjenih vprašalnikov in izpolnjenih obrazcev zahtevka za TGO vložnikov za IP vključevalo preveritve na kraju samem pri eni družbi (vložnik A) in drugima dvema družbama (ki sta del vložnika B).
During these on-the-spot investigations, compliance with the provisions of Article 2(7)(c) would need to be verified as well as all these entities’ reported structure, costs (including production costs and purchases), sales and profitability.
Med temi preveritvami na kraju samem bi bilo treba preveriti skladnost z določbami člena 2(7)(c) ter navedeno strukturo, stroške (vključno s proizvodnimi stroški in nabavo), prodajo in dobičkonosnost vseh teh subjektov.
In view of the large number of entities already investigated within the sample, to add an additional applicant would indeed have been unduly burdensome and would have seriously jeopardised the completion of the investigation in good time.
Ker je bilo preiskanih že veliko subjektov v okviru vzorca, bi bila vključitev dodatnega vložnika neutemeljeno obremenjujoča in bi resno ogrozila pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
Therefore, the decision not to accept these requests for individual examination is justified by the law and not in breach with the principle of proportionality.
Zato je odločitev, da se teh zahtevkov za individualno preiskavo ne sprejme, zakonsko utemeljena in ne krši načela sorazmernosti.
After being informed that an IE would be too burdensome, applicant B later proposed to withdraw its MET claim if it would be agreed to examine it for IT.
Potem ko je bil vložnik B seznanjen, da bi bila IP preveč obremenjujoča, je pozneje predlagal, da bo umaknil svoj zahtevek za TGO, če se Komisija strinja, da bo preučila njegov zahtevek za IO.
Because it alleged to have made only one small export transaction during the IP and would no longer claim MET, it argued that the Commission would not need to conduct an on-the-spot verification in the PRC to make a dumping determination and that it would be enough to verify that single export transaction while verifying the questionnaire reply of the complainant in the EU.
Ker je izjavil, da je v OP opravil samo eno manjšo izvozno transakcijo in ne bo več zahteval TGO, je trdil, da Komisiji ne bi bilo treba opraviti preveritve na kraju samem v LRK za ugotovitev dampinga in da bi zadoščala preveritev te ene izvozne transakcije s preveritvijo izpolnjenega vprašalnika pritožnika v EU.
On this basis, the exporter argued that granting individual examination would not be burdensome.
Izvoznik je trdil, da odobritev individualne preiskave na tej podlagi ne bi bila obremenjujoča.
However, if IE were granted, an on-the-spot verification of applicant B would be necessary, since without on-the-spot verification in the PRC of both producers in the group, the existence of other sales to the EU during the IP could not be excluded.
Vendar če bi bila IP odobrena, bi bilo treba opraviti preveritev vložnika B na kraju samem, ker brez preveritve obeh proizvajalcev iz skupine na kraju samem v LRK ne bi bilo mogoče izključiti obstoja druge prodaje v EU v OP.
Such verification would have been unduly burdensome given the size of the sample with three big groups of companies.
Take preveritve bi bile neupravičeno obremenjujoče glede na velikost vzorca s tremi velikimi skupinami družb.
The request was therefore rejected.
Zahteva je bila zato zavrnjena.
The decision not to accept the requests for individual treatment has been maintained.
Odločitev, da se zahtevki za individualno obravnavo ne sprejmejo, je ostala nespremenjena.
In view of the grounds cited above, it has been definitively decided that requests for individual examination could not be granted as they would render the investigation unduly burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time.
Na podlagi navedenih razlogov je bilo dokončno odločeno, da zahtevkov za individualno preiskavo ni mogoče odobriti, ker bi preiskavo neupravičeno obremenili in bi preprečili pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a determination of dumping, resulting injury or threat of injury and Union interest.
Komisija je zbrala in preverila vse informacije, ki so se ji zdele potrebne za ugotovitev dampinga, nastale škode ali nevarnosti škode in interesa Unije.
Gushen Biological Technology Group Co. Ltd and its related companies, Dezhou,
Gushen Biological Technology Group Co., Ltd. in njene povezane družbe, Dezhou,
Shandong Crown Soya Protein Co. Ltd and its related companies, Shenxian, Qingdao, Yucheng,
Shandong Crown Soya Protein Co., Ltd. in njene povezane družbe, Shenxian, Qingdao, Yucheng,
Shandong Sinoglory Health Food Co. Ltd and its related companies, Liaocheng, Qingdao;
Shandong Sinoglory Health Food Co., Ltd. in njene povezane družbe, Liaocheng, Qingdao;
Union producer:
proizvajalec Unije:
Solae Europe, with production facilities in:
Solae Europe s proizvodnimi obrati:
Belgium, Ieper (Solae Belgium), and
v Belgiji, Ieper (Solae Belgium) in
Denmark, Aarhus (Solae Denmark);
na Danskem, Aarhus (Solae Denmark);
Producers in the analogue country:
proizvajalca v primerljivi državi:
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Preiskava dampinga in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2010 do 31. decembra 2010 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 2007 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Preučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od leta 2007 do konca obdobja preiskave („obravnavano obdobje“).
FINDINGS AT THE INTERIM STAGE
UGOTOVITVE V VMESNI FAZI
At the interim stage it was considered that the imposition of provisional measures would not be appropriate in particular in view of the need to further analyse the causal link between the dumped imports of certain concentrated soy protein products from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
V vmesni fazi je veljalo, da uvedba začasnih ukrepov ne bi bila primerna, zlasti ker bi bilo treba dodatno analizirati vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom nekaterih proizvodov iz koncentriranih sojinih beljakovin iz LRK in škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided not to impose provisional measures (‘interim disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the interim findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev, da se začasni ukrepi ne uvedejo („vmesno razkritje“), je več zainteresiranih strani predložilo pisna stališča v zvezi z vmesnimi ugotovitvami.
The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its final findings.
Komisija je še naprej zbirala informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za sprejetje dokončnih ugotovitev.
In addition to the verifications mentioned in recital 23 above, a further verification was carried out at the premises of Kerry in Bristol, UK, one of the importers and users of soy proteins which cooperated in the investigation.
Poleg preveritev iz uvodne izjave 23 je bila dodatna preveritev opravljena v prostorih družbe Kerry v Bristolu, Združenem kraljestvu, tj. enemu od uvoznikov in uporabnikov sojinih beljakovin, ki so sodelovali v preiskavi.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
B. ZADEVNI IZDELEK IN PODOBNI IZDELEK
The product concerned was defined in the notice of initiation as concentrated soy protein products, containing by weight 65 % or more of proteins (N × 6,25) calculated on the dry matter by excluding added vitamins, minerals, amino acids and food additives, originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’ or ‘CCSPP’) and currently falling within CN codes ex21061020, ex21069092, ex23099010, ex23099099 (ex23099096 as from 1 January 2012) and ex35040090.
Zadevni izdelek je bil v obvestilu o začetku opredeljen kot proizvodi iz koncentriranih sojinih beljakovin, ki vsebujejo najmanj 65 mas. % beljakovin (N × 6,25), računano na suho snov in brez upoštevanja dodanih vitaminov, mineralov, aminokislin in aditivov za živila („zadevni izdelek“), ter ki se trenutno uvrščajo pod oznake KN ex21061020, ex21069092, ex23099010, ex23099099 (od 1. januarja 2012ex23099096) in ex35040090.
Within the above product scope, two main product groups can be distinguished: (i) soy protein concentrates (‘SPCs’ or ‘concentrates’ including simple/basic concentrates and further processed concentrates), which have a protein content of more than 65 % but less than 90 %; and (ii) isolated soy proteins (‘ISPs’ or ‘isolates’), which have a protein content of 90 % or more.
Navedeni obseg izdelka je mogoče ločiti na dve glavni skupini izdelkov: (i) koncentrirane sojine beljakovine („koncentrate“, vključno z enostavnimi/osnovnimi in nadalje predelanimi koncentrati) z vsebnostjo beljakovin več kot 65 %, vendar manj kot 90 %, ter (ii) izolirane sojine beljakovine („izolate“) z vsebnostjo beljakovin 90 % ali več.
It was also established that whereas the simple concentrate is a fairly basic product with low value added, isolates and further processed concentrates require substantially more processing and are consequently higher value added products.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da je enostavni koncentrat dokaj osnoven izdelek z nizko dodano vrednostjo, izolati in nadalje predelani koncentrati pa zahtevajo znatno več predelave in so posledično izdelki z višjo dodano vrednostjo.
The product scope as described above includes also simple (not further processed) concentrates for animal feed.
Opisani obseg izdelka vključuje tudi enostavne (ne nadalje predelane) koncentrate za krmo.
These were produced in the period considered in the EU by one plant of the complainant located in France and by another company, ADM, based in the Netherlands.
V obravnavanem obdobju so se v EU proizvajali v enem od obratov pritožnika v Franciji, proizvajala pa jih je tudi druga družba ADM s sedežem na Nizozemskem.
Following the interim disclosure the complainant requested a change of the product scope by eliminating concentrates used for animal feed.
Po vmesnem razkritju je pritožnik zahteval spremembo obsega izdelka, iz katerega naj bi odstranili koncentrate, ki se uporabljajo za krmo.
The complainant opposed the approach proposed in the interim document and argued that exclusion of data from the French plant that closed in 2009 (i.e. in the middle of the period considered) resulted in an inconsistency in the remaining data (with ADM data still included).
Pritožnik je nasprotoval pristopu, predlaganemu v vmesnem dokumentu, in trdil, da je neupoštevanje podatkov o francoskem obratu, ki je ustavil proizvodnjo leta 2009 (tj. sredi obravnavanega obdobja), povzročilo nedoslednosti pri preostalih podatkih (v katere so vključeni podatki ADM).
Consequently, the sales and market share of EU producers of the product under investigation were artificially inflated.
Zato sta bila prodaja in tržni delež proizvajalcev EU izdelka v preiskavi umetno napihnjena.
The complainant argued that given relatively stable demand, some of the supply provided by the Solae French plant until it closed in 2009 was taken over by their competitor in the EU, ADM.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je glede na razmeroma stabilno povpraševanje nekaj dobave, ki jo je zagotavljal francoski obrat družbe Solae do zaprtja leta 2009, prevzel njen konkurent v EU, tj. ADM.
Consequently, disregarding the data from the French plant led to a misleading comparison of year 2008 data, when ADM had only a smaller share of the market for animal concentrates, with the IP data, when AMD had a much bigger share of that market.
Posledično je neupoštevanje podatkov o francoskem obratu povzročilo zavajajočo primerjavo med podatki iz leta 2008, ko je imel ADM samo manjši delež na trgu koncentratov za krmo, in podatki iz OP, ko je ADM dosegel bistveno večji delež navedenega trga.
In particular, the complainant provided information on technical and chemical differences between the concentrates for animal feed on the one hand and other concentrates and isolates on the other hand.
Pritožnik je zlasti predložil informacije o tehničnih in kemičnih razlikah med koncentrati za krmo na eni strani ter drugimi koncentrati in izolati na drugi strani.
Also, different distribution channels are used for these subgroups.
Za ti podskupini so bile uporabljene tudi druge distribucijske poti.
In addition, concentrates for animal feed fall within a different CN code than other concentrates (for food) and isolates.
Poleg tega se koncentrati za krmo uvrščajo pod drugo kodo KN kot drugi koncentrati (za živila) in izolati.
Following the submission of the complainant, one exporter disagreed with the request to limit the product scope.
Po pritožnikovi vložitvi zahtevka je en izvoznik nasprotoval zahtevi za omejitev obsega izdelka.
However, this exporter misunderstood the request and had considered that the request was to exclude all the soy protein concentrates, while in fact it refers only to simple SPC for animal feed.
Vendar je ta izvoznik zahtevek napačno razumel, saj je mislil, da je bil namen zahtevka izključiti vse koncentrirane sojine beljakovine, pri čemer se zahtevek v resnici nanaša samo na enostavne koncentrirane sojine beljakovine za krmo.