natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the determination of normal value, it was first established whether the company’s total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union.
Za določitev normalne vrednosti je bilo najprej ugotovljeno, ali je bila skupna domača prodaja podobnega izdelka družbe neodvisnim strankam reprezentativna v primerjavi z njegovim celotnim obsegom izvoza v Unijo.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales are considered to be representative when the total domestic sales volume is at least 5 % of the total volume of sales of the product concerned to the Union.
V skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe se domača prodaja šteje za reprezentativno, če celotni obseg domače prodaje pomeni vsaj 5 % celotnega obsega prodaje zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.
It was found that the overall sales, by the company, of the like product on the domestic market were representative.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bil celotni obseg prodaje družbe podobnega izdelka na domačem trgu reprezentativen.
For each product type sold by the company on its domestic market and found to be directly comparable with the product type sold for export to the Union, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
Za vsako vrsto izdelka, ki ga je družba prodala na svojem domačem trgu in za katerega se je izkazalo, da je neposredno primerljiv z vrsto izdelka, prodanega za izvoz v Unijo, je bilo ugotovljeno, ali je bila domača prodaja dovolj reprezentativna za namene člena 2(2) osnovne uredbe.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the RIP represented at least 5 % of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Union.
Domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka se je štela za dovolj reprezentativno, če je celotni obseg navedene vrste izdelka, prodanega v OPP neodvisnim strankam na domačem trgu, pomenil vsaj 5 % celotnega obsega prodaje primerljive vrste izdelka, izvoženega v Unijo.
It was also examined whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Preučeno je bilo tudi, ali se za domačo prodajo posamezne vrste izdelka lahko šteje, da je bila opravljena v običajnem poteku trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers on the domestic market which were profitable for each exported type of the product concerned during each of the periods.
To je bilo izvedeno tako, da se je pri vsaki izvoženi vrsti izdelka določil delež dobičkonosne domače prodaje neodvisnim strankam na domačem trgu za vsako obdobje.
Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during each of the periods.
Kadar je obseg dobičkonosne prodaje neke vrste izdelka pomenil 80 % ali manj celotnega obsega prodaje navedene vrste ali kadar je bila tehtana povprečna cena navedene vrste nižja od stroškov proizvodnje na enoto, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtana povprečna cena zgolj dobičkonosne domače prodaje navedene vrste v vsakem obdobju.
Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by the company could not be used in order to establish normal value, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
Kadar domačih cen določene vrste izdelka, ki jo je prodajala družba, ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za določitev normalne vrednosti, je bila normalna vrednost konstruirana v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe.
When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to the introductory phrase of Article 2(6), of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the company.
Pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe so zneski za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške ter za dobiček v skladu z uvodnim stavkom člena 2(6) osnovne uredbe temeljili na dejanskih podatkih za proizvodnjo in prodajo podobnega izdelka družbe v običajnem poteku trgovine.
The company’s export sales to the Union are made through the Swiss branch of its related company RFAI which during the RIP performed all import functions in relation to the goods entering into free circulation in the Union, i.e. that of a related importer.
Izvoz družbe v Unijo je potekal prek švicarske podružnice njegove povezane družbe RFAI, ki je v OPP opravljala vse uvozne funkcije, povezane z blagom za sprostitev v prosti promet Unije, tj. opravljala funkcije povezanega uvoznika.
The export price was thus established in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer, adjusted for all costs, incurred between importation and resale, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and for profits.
Izvozna cena je bila zato v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe določena na podlagi cen, po katerih so bili uvoženi izdelki najprej nadalje prodani neodvisnemu kupcu, ta pa je bila prilagojena za vse stroške, ki so nastali med uvozom in nadaljnjo prodajo, ter na podlagi ustrezne stopnje za PSA-stroške in dobiček.
For this purpose, in the absence of new information from independent importers concerning profits accruing, use was made of the profit rate applied in the original investigation, namely 6 %.
Ker ni novih informacij neodvisnih uvoznikov glede nastalega dobička, je bila uporabljena enaka stopnja dobička kakor tista, ki je bila uporabljena v prvotni preiskavi, torej 6 %.
The applicant claimed that RFAI should be treated as part of the same single economic entity (SEE) and that consequently when determining the export prices no deduction should be made for SG&A and profit of RFAI.
Vložnik je trdil, da je treba družbo RFAI obravnavati kot del enega samega gospodarskega subjekta in da se posledično pri določitvi izvoznih cen ne smejo odšteti PSA-stroški in dobiček družbe.
This claim can not be accepted for the following reasons:
Te trditve ni mogoče sprejeti iz naslednjih razlogov:
the two exporting producers have their own export sales department,
oba proizvajalca izvoznika imata svoj oddelek za izvoz,
RFAI is strongly involved in the international activity of the Group (customer assistance, logistics and schedule of the deliveries, purchasing of capital goods and key raw materials, etc.),
družba RFAI je tesno povezana z mednarodnimi dejavnostmi skupine (npr. pomoč strankam, logistika in urnik dostav, nabava investicijskega blaga in ključnih surovin itd.),
the Swiss branch of RFAI is performing all the functions normally performed by a related importer in the EU,
švicarska podružnica družbe RFAI opravlja vse funkcije, ki jih običajno opravlja povezan uvoznik v EU,
RFAI sells ferro-silicon in its own name and for its own account to unrelated customers in the EU and elsewhere,
družba RFAI nepovezanim strankam v EU in drugje prodaja fero-silicij s svojim imenom in na svoj račun,
RFAI has a purchase-sales relationship with the two related Russian producers KF and CHEM,
družba RFAI ima odnos nakup-prodaja z dvema povezanima ruskima proizvajalcema, in sicer družbama KF in CHEM,
each company drafts its own financial report and no consolidated financial report exists, and
vsaka družba pripravlja svoje finančno poročilo in ni nobenega konsolidiranega finančnega poročila, ter
each company files its own tax return with the respective authorities.
vsaka družba vloži svoj davčni obračun pri ustreznih organih.
Accordingly, the claim that no deduction should be made for SG&A and profit in the construction of the export price had to be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti trditev, da se pri konstruiranju izvozne cene ne smejo odšteti PSA-stroški in dobiček.
The applicant’s comments on this point in reply to the final disclosure will be discussed below (point 2.3).
Pripombe, ki jih je o tem dal vložnik v odzivu na končno razkritje, bodo obravnavane v točki 2.3.
The applicant also claimed that no deduction of the anti-dumping duty should be made in the calculation of the export price in accordance with the Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, since the duty is duly reflected in resale prices and the subsequent selling prices in the Union.
Vložnik je trdil tudi, da se ne sme odšteti protidampinška dajatev pri izračunu izvozne cene v skladu s členom 11(10) osnovne uredbe, saj je dajatev ustrezno razvidna iz cen pri nadaljnji prodaji in nadaljnjih prodajnih cen v Uniji.
With respect to this claim, the investigation has established that the weighted average resale prices of ferro-silicon in the Union have increased in comparison with the prices in the original investigation and the current resale export prices are largely more than 22,7 % higher than such prices in the original investigation.
V zvezi s to trditvijo je bilo s preiskavo ugotovljeno, da so se tehtane povprečne cene pri nadaljnji prodaji fero-silicija v Uniji povišale v primerjavi s cenami v prvotni preiskavi in da so trenutne izvozne cene pri nadaljnji prodaji precej višje kot 22,7 % kot take cene v prvotni preiskavi.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the anti-dumping duty is duly reflected in the applicant’s resale prices.
Zato se lahko sklene, da je protidampinška dajatev ustrezno razvidna iz vložnikovih cen pri nadaljnji prodaji.
As a result, this claim of the applicant could be accepted and, in the calculation of the constructed export prices in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, no deduction of the anti-dumping duties has been carried out.
Zato te trditve vložnika ni mogoče sprejeti in pri izračunu konstruiranih izvoznih cen v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe niso bile odštete protidampinške dajatve.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for transport costs, insurance costs, terminal and handling costs, credit costs, and commissions, where applicable and justified, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Za zagotovitev poštene primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno so bili, kadar je bilo primerno in utemeljeno, v obliki prilagoditev ustrezno upoštevani stroški prevoza, stroški zavarovanja, zapiralni in manipulativni stroški, stroški kredita ter provizije v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
The outcome showed the existence of dumping.
Rezultati so pokazali obstoj dampinga.
In order to calculate the dumping margin, the Institutions, as in the original investigation, noted that CHEM and KF are closely related.
Za izračun stopnje dampinga so institucije kot v prvotni preiskavi opazile, da sta družbi CHEM in KF tesno povezani.
As in the original investigation, and in line with the Institutions’ standard practice, a single dumping margin was calculated for the whole Group.
Kot v prvotni preiskavi in v skladu s standardno prakso institucij je bila za celotno skupino izračunana enotna stopnja dampinga.
In the method used for doing so in the final disclosure, the amount of dumping was calculated for each individual exporting producer before determining a weighted average rate of dumping for the group as a whole.
Z metodo iz končnega razkritja je bil obseg dampinga izračunan za vsakega posameznega proizvajalca izvoznika pred določitvijo tehtane povprečne stopnje dampinga za skupino kot celoto.
It should be noted that this methodology was different from the methodology applied in the original investigation, where the dumping calculation was done by collapsing all relevant data with regard to domestic sales, cost of production, profitability and sales in the Union of the producing entities.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila ta metodologija drugačna od metodologije, ki se je uporabila v prvotni preiskavi, ko je bil damping izračunan z združitvijo vseh ustreznih podatkov glede domače prodaje, stroškov proizvodnje, dobičkonosnosti in prodaje proizvajalcev v Uniji.
The applicant claimed that applying this methodology would be contrary to Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je trdil, da je uporaba te metodologije v nasprotju s členom 11(9) osnovne uredbe.
This issue, too, will be returned to below (point 2.3).
Tudi to vprašanje bo obravnavano v točki 2.3.
Analysis of the reactions to final disclosure relating to the dumping margin during the RIP.
Analiza odzivov na končno razkritje v zvezi s stopnjo dampinga v OPP
The applicant submitted several comments on certain aspects of the calculations such as cost of production, SG&A, profit margin, normal value and allowances.
Vložnik je predložil nekaj pripomb na nekatere vidike izračunov, kot so stroški proizvodnje, PSA-stroški, stopnja dobička, normalna vrednost in popravki.
All these comments were considered and, where appropriate, clerical errors were corrected.
Vse te pripombe so bile obravnavane, po potrebi pa so bile popravljene stvarne napake.
Accordingly, the definitive findings have been modified.
Dokončne ugotovitve so bile ustrezno spremenjene.
In addition, the applicant requested the Commission to express the dumping amount on the basis of a cif value that they constructed themselves for the purposes of this investigation, therefore making reference to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je vložnik od Komisije zahteval, da je obseg dampinga izražen na podlagi vrednosti CIF, ki jo je sam konstruiral za to preiskavo, in se pri tem skliceval na člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
The claim was based on the grounds that the price declared to customs authorities is a transfer price which would perhaps be the correct price for customs purposes, but not a price that should be used when calculating dumping in anti-dumping proceedings.
Trditev je temeljila na tem, da je cena, prijavljena carinskim organom, transferna cena, ki bi lahko bila ustrezna cena za carinske namene, vendar to ni ustrezna cena za izračun dampinga v protidampinških postopkih.
This claim has to be rejected because the difference between the export price and the normal value, i.e. the dumping amount, should be expressed on the same basis as the one which is subsequently used by customs authorities to determine any duty to be collected.
To trditev je treba zavrniti, ker mora biti razlika med izvozno ceno in normalno vrednostjo, tj. obseg dampinga, izražena na isti podlagi kot cena, ki jo pozneje uporabijo carinski organi za določitev kakršne koli dajatve, ki se bo pobirala.
This is in fact the cif value declared by the applicant to customs authorities.
To je dejansko vrednost CIF, ki jo je vložnik prijavil carinskim organom.
Consequently, the latter was used in the calculations.
Zato je bila ta cena uporabljena pri izračunih.
With regards to the calculation of the cost of production, the applicant contested the Commission approach to use the average purchase price of a main cost item from an unrelated supplier in place of the actual price paid to a related supplier of the same cost item in the construction of the normal value.
Glede izračuna stroškov proizvodnje je vložnik nasprotoval pristopu Komisije, ki je pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti uporabila povprečno nakupno ceno glavne stroškovne postavke nepovezanega dobavitelja namesto dejanske cene, plačane povezanemu dobavitelju enake stroškovne postavke.
This claim has to be rejected because the price charged by the related supplier was significantly lower than the price paid for the same raw material to an independent supplier.
To trditev je treba zavrniti, ker je bila cena, ki jo je zaračunal povezani dobavitelj, precej nižja od cene, plačane neodvisnemu dobavitelju za enako surovino.
This price, therefore, cannot be considered as an arm’s length price.
Ta cena se zato ne more šteti za tržno ceno.
Consequently, this cost element needed to be adjusted.
Zato je treba prilagoditi ta stroškovni element.
Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that packing costs were not treated consistently when comparing export prices with normal values.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da se stroški pakiranja pri primerjavi izvoznih cen z normalnimi vrednostmi niso obravnavali dosledno.
This issue was investigated and, where applicable, clerical errors were corrected.
To vprašanje je bilo obravnavano, po potrebi pa so bile popravljene stvarne napake.
The applicant commented also on the exclusion of the export transactions of a particular product type.
Vložnik je predložil pripombe tudi glede izvzetja izvoznih transakcij določene vrste izdelka.
The sales of this product type in the Union represented less than 5 % of the applicant’s sales in the Union of the product concerned during the RIP.
Prodaja te vrste izdelka v Uniji je predstavljala manj kot 5 % prodaje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji, ki jo je vložnik opravil v OPP.
This point has to be rejected given that no sales of this product type were made on the domestic market neither specific cost of production had been provided.
To je treba zavrniti, saj se ta vrsta izdelka ni prodajala na domačem trgu, ni pa bil predložen niti noben poseben strošek proizvodnje.
As this product type had been exported to the EU in low volumes during the RIP, it was therefore considered not appropriate to resort to constructing the normal value on the basis of manufacturing costs of other product types, thereby making adjustments for product differences.
Ker se je ta vrsta izdelka v OPP izvažala v Unijo v majhnih količinah, se je štelo, da ni primerno konstruirati normalne vrednosti na podlagi stroškov proizvodnje drugih vrst izdelkov s prilagoditvami za razlike v izdelkih.
In addition and as explained above, in particular regarding two important points of the dumping margin calculation, namely: (i) the question whether CHEM, KF and RFAI form a single economic entity [6] and (ii) the calculation of an individual amount of dumping for CHEM on the one hand, and KF on the other hand [7], the applicant made detailed comments in its reaction to the definitive disclosure.
Poleg tega in kot je že bilo pojasnjeno, je vložnik v odzivu na končno razkritje predložil podrobne pripombe, zlasti glede dveh pomembnih zadev pri izračunu stopnje dampinga, in sicer (i) vprašanju, ali družbe CHEM, KF in RFAI tvorijo en gospodarski subjekt [6], in (ii) izračunu individualne stopnje dampinga za družbo CHEM na eni strani in družbo KF na drugi strani [7].
Regarding the first claim, and in particular on the points put forward by the applicant in its reaction to the definitive disclosure, the following is observed.
Glede prve trditve in zlasti glede zadev, ki jih je vložnik predložil v odzivu na končno razkritje, je bilo ugotovljeno naslednje.
The applicant reiterated its position that the two exporting producers and the related trader RFAI are ultimately owned and controlled by the same beneficiaries and that it, therefore, would have no autonomy and simply follow the instructions of the owners of the applicant.
Vložnik je ponovil svoje stališče, da sta oba proizvajalca izvoznika in povezani trgovec RFAI v bistvu v lasti in pod nadzorom istih upravičencev ter da zato ne ravnajo avtonomno in le upoštevajo navodila lastnikov vložnika.
It acknowledged all the elements listed in recital 24 above, but it disagreed to the Institutions’ appreciation thereof as they would have no bearing on whether CHEM, KF and RFAI are all parts of an SEE.
Vložnik je priznal vse elemente iz uvodne izjave 24, ni pa se strinjal z oceno institucij, na katero ni vplivalo vprašanje, ali družbe CHEM, KF in RFAI tvorijo en gospodarski subjekt.
The Institutions reject the applicant’s comments.
Institucije zavračajo pripombe vložnika.
The criteria already listed above, are, especially if all taken together, well-grounded to justify the rejection of the applicant’s claim.
Že navedena merila, zlasti če se obravnavajo skupaj, ustrezno utemeljujejo zavrnitev trditve vložnika.
All the elements listed in recital 24 above point at a group structure where all the companies are distinctive legal entities in which KF and CHEM performed the complete function of an exporting producers (production and export function) while RFAI operates mainly as a related trader/importer in the EU.
Vsi elementi iz uvodne izjave 24 kažejo na skupinsko strukturo, v kateri so vse družbe ločeni pravni subjekti, družbi KF in CHEM v celoti opravljata funkcijo proizvajalcev izvoznikov (funkcija proizvodnje in izvoza), družba RFAI pa deluje večinoma kot povezani trgovec/uvoznik v EU.
First, even if this claim were accepted (in addition to the acceptance, where appropriate, of the claims referred to in recital 29 above), the applicant would still have been found dumping on the EU market, during the RIP, at a dumping margin of approximately 13 %.
Prvič, tudi če bi bila ta trditev sprejeta (poleg sprejetja drugih trditev iz uvodne izjave 29, kadar je to primerno), bi bil za vložnika še vedno ugotovljen damping na trgu EU v OPP, in sicer po približno 13-odstotni stopnji dampinga.
Second, as explained below, in any case there is currently insufficient evidence to consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a lasting one.
Drugič, kot je navedeno spodaj, v vsakem primeru trenutno ni dovolj dokazov, da bi se stopnja dampinga v OPP štela za trajno.
In its reaction to definitive disclosure, the Union industry argued that, as a result of the review investigation, the duty on the applicant’s products should be increased, because, assuming that all of the applicant’s claims would be refused, the dumping margin found during the RIP was higher than the applicable duty.
V odzivu na končno razkritje je industrija Unije trdila, da je treba po pregledu v zvezi s preiskavo zvišati dajatev na izdelke vložnika, saj je bila po predpostavki, da bi se vse vložnikove trditve zavrnile, stopnja dampinga, ugotovljena v OPP, višja kot veljavna dajatev.
However, since, as explained below, there is insufficient evidence of a lasting change in circumstances, there is no justification for modifying the duty, neither upward nor downward.
Vendar kot je pojasnjeno spodaj, ker ni dovolj dokazov glede trajnosti okoliščin, zvišanje ali znižanje dajatve ni utemeljeno.
Analysis of the question whether there is a lasting change in circumstances justifying a reduction or removal of the duty
Analiza vprašanja, ali so okoliščine trajne, kar upravičuje znižanje ali ukinitev dajatve
Nevertheless, in spite of the acceptance of certain of the applicant’s claims as described above, it is still found to have been dumping on the EU market, during the RIP, at a dumping margin of at least 13 %.
Kljub temu, da so bile nekatere vložnikove trditve sprejete, kot je že navedeno, je bil še vedno ugotovljen damping na trgu EU v OPP, in sicer po vsaj 13-odstotni stopnji dampinga.
Moreover, as will be explained below, in any case there is insufficient evidence to consider the dumping margin during the RIP as a lasting one.
Poleg tega kot je navedeno spodaj, v vsakem primeru ni dovolj dokazov, da bi se stopnja dampinga v OPP štela za trajno.
The applicant based its reasoning why there is a lasting change of circumstances on the following points:
Vložnik je svojo utemeljitev za trajnost okoliščin osnoval na naslednjih točkah: