natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One exporting producer argued that in calculating its dumping margin, the total amount of dumping found should be expressed as a percentage of the total CIF value of all export transactions and not as a percentage of those export transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da bi morala biti pri izračunu njegove stopnje dampinga celotna količina ugotovljenega dampinga izražena kot delež celotne vrednosti CIF za vse izvozne transakcije in ne kot delež tistih izvoznih transakcij, ki so bile uporabljene pri izračunu količine dampinga.
To do otherwise would, in this company’s opinion, amount to a presumption of dumping for those export transactions not used in the dumping determination.
Drugačno ravnanje bi po mnenju tega podjetja privedlo do predpostavke dampinga za tiste izvozne transakcije, ki niso bile uporabljene pri določitvi dampinga.
A comparison between export price and normal value was made on a weighted average basis only for those types exported by the Chinese exporting producer for which a matching type was produced and sold by the Indian producer.
Primerjava izvozne cene in normalne vrednosti je bila izvedena na podlagi tehtanega povprečja samo za tiste vrste, ki jih je izvažal kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik ter katerih primerljivi tip je proizvajal in prodajal indijski proizvajalec.
This was considered to be the most reliable basis for establishing the level of dumping, if any, of this exporting producer; to attempt to match all other exported types to closely resembling types of the Indian producer would have resulted in inaccurate findings.
To je veljalo za najbolj zanesljivo podlago za opredelitev morebitne stopnje dampinga za tega proizvajalca izvoznika; poskus primerjave vseh drugih izvoženih vrst z zelo primerljivimi vrstami indijskega proizvajalca bi privedel do nepravilnih ugotovitev.
On this basis, it is correct to express the amount of dumping found as a percentage of those export transactions used in calculating the amount of dumping — this finding is considered to be representative for all types exported.
Na podlagi tega je pravilno, da se stopnjo ugotovljenega dampinga izrazi kot delež tistih izvoznih transakcij, ki so bile uporabljene pri izračunu stopnje dampinga – ta ugotovitev velja za reprezentativno za vse izvožene vrste.
The same approach was used in calculating the dumping margins of the other exporting producers.
Enak pristop je bil uporabljen pri izračunu stopenj dampinga za druge proizvajalce izvoznike.
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission reassessed the definition of the Union industry, in order to take into account the recommendations of the DSB Reports, suggesting that the EU had acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by excluding from the Union industry definition those producers unwilling to be included in the sample and by considering that the threshold of 25 % enshrined in Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation automatically represented a ‘major proportion’ of the total Union production of the product concerned.
Kot je navedeno v obvestilu o začetku, je Komisija ponovno preučila opredelitev industrije Unije, da bi upoštevala priporočila iz poročil organa za reševanje sporov, ki navajajo, da je EU ravnala v neskladju s členom 4.1 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, ker je iz opredelitve industrije Unije izključila tiste proizvajalce, ki niso želeli biti vključeni v vzorec, in ker je navedla, da mejna vrednost 25 % iz člena 4.1 osnovne uredbe samodejno predstavlja „glavni delež“ celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji.
In paragraph 430 of the report of the Appellate Body issued on 15 July 2011, it is acknowledged that the ‘fragmented nature of the fasteners industry, however, might have permitted such a low proportion due to the impracticability of obtaining more information, provided that the process with which the Commission defined the industry did not give rise to a material risk of distortion. […] by limiting the domestic industry definition to those producers willing to be part of the sample, the Commission excluded producers that provided relevant information.’ (emphasis added).
V odstavku 430 poročila pritožbenega organa z dne 15. julija 2011 je navedeno, da „bi bil zaradi razdrobljenosti industrije pritrdilnih elementov dopusten tako nizek delež, ker ni bilo mogoče pridobiti več informacij, pod pogojem, da postopek, s katerim je Komisija opredelila industrijo, ni povečal tveganja izkrivljanja. […] z omejitvijo opredelitve domače industrije na tiste proizvajalce, ki so želeli biti del vzorca, je Komisija izključila proizvajalce, ki so predložili ustrezne informacije“ (poudarek dodan).
It is these latter producers which are now being included into the definition of Union industry.
Ti slednji proizvajalci bodo zdaj vključeni v opredelitev industrije Unije.
In the original investigation it was found that the production of the Union producers that agreed to be included in the sample and fully cooperated in the original investigation represented 27,0 % of the total production of the product concerned in the Union.
V prvotni preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da predstavlja proizvodnja proizvajalcev iz Unije, ki so potrdili sodelovanje v vzorcu in v celoti sodelovali v prvotni preiskavi, 27,0 % celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji.
It was therefore considered that these companies constituted the Union industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je veljalo, da te družbe sestavljajo industrijo Unije v smislu člena 4(1) in člena 5(4) osnovne uredbe.
Following the conclusions of the DSB Reports and based on all valid submissions received from all EU producers who had come forward within the deadline laid down in paragraph 6(b)(i) of the Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China [8], and regardless of whether they indicated that they were prepared to be part of the sample, the Commission recalculated that the Union industry actually represented 36,3 % of the total production of the product concerned in the Union in 2006.
V skladu s sklepi poročil organa za reševanje sporov in na podlagi vseh veljavnih vlog vseh proizvajalcev EU, ki so bile predložene v roku iz odstavka 6(b)(i) obvestila o začetku protidampinškega postopka v zvezi z uvozi nekaterih pritrdilnih elementov iz železa ali jekla iz Ljudske republike Kitajske [8], in ne glede na njihovo pripravljenost biti del vzorca je Komisija ponovno izračunala, da je industrija Unije dejansko predstavljala 36,3 % celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji v letu 2006.
Having reviewed the definition of the Union industry, the Commission ascertained whether the percentage of production of fasteners of that industry out of the total estimated production represented a major proportion in the sense of Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Po pregledu opredelitve industrije Unije je Komisija preverila, ali delež proizvodnje pritrdilnih elementov industrije zunaj celotne ocenjene proizvodnje predstavlja glavni delež v smislu člena 4.1 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
As mentioned in recital 112 of the definitive Regulation, the investigation established that the like product is manufactured by a high number of producers in the Union, estimated at over 300 mostly small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) but including a few larger companies or groups of companies.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 112 dokončne uredbe, je bilo v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da proizvajajo podoben izdelek številni proizvajalci v Uniji, po ocenah več kot 300 predvsem malih in srednjih podjetij („MSP“), vključno z nekaj večjimi družbami ali skupinami družb.
At the time of initiation of the original investigation, the Commission contacted each of these known producers and asked them to participate in the investigation and provide certain information on their operations.
Na začetku prvotne preiskave je Komisija stopila v stik z vsakim od teh znanih proizvajalcev in jih pozvala k sodelovanju v preiskavi in k predložitvi nekaterih informacij o svojih dejavnostih.
Neither the Notice of Initiation published upon initiation of the original investigation nor the cover letter sent on the day of initiation to all known EU producers, made reference to the fact that the information submitted by EU producers who did not wish to cooperate would be disregarded.
Niti v obvestilu o začetku, objavljenem po začetku prvotne preiskave, niti v spremnem pismu, ki je bilo na dan začetka poslano vsem znanim proizvajalcem EU, ni bilo navedeno, da informacije, predložene od proizvajalcev EU, ki niso želeli sodelovati, ne bodo upoštevane.
As mentioned, most of the EU fasteners producers are small, if not, micro enterprises (family businesses) that typically have limited resources including financial and personnel resources, are not members of national or EU associations which could represent them during the investigation and, as is often the case for SMEs, have no resources to engage specialised trade lawyers and accountants.
Kot je navedeno, so proizvajalci pritrdilnih elementov v EU predvsem mala ali celo mikro podjetja (družinska podjetja), ki imajo običajno omejene vire, vključno s finančnimi in kadrovskimi viri, in niso člani nacionalnih združenj ali združenj EU, ki bi jih lahko zastopala med preiskavo, ter – kar je pogost primer pri MSP – nimajo sredstev za specializirane odvetnike za trgovino in računovodje.
Small companies also have strong concerns with regard to the protection of their confidential data in the course of such investigations, which they consider as vital.
Male družbe tudi zelo skrbijo za zaščito svojih zaupnih podatkov med takšnimi preiskavami, kar se jim zdi bistvenega pomena.
Nevertheless, a good number of producers came forward (63 EU producers in total) and provided the required information.
Kljub temu se je javilo precejšnje število proizvajalcev (skupno 63 proizvajalcev EU), ki so predložili potrebne informacije.
It should be noted that these producers consisted of both SMEs and larger companies which were spread throughout the EU.
Omeniti je treba, da so bili ti proizvajalci tako MSP kot tudi večje družbe, in sicer iz celotne EU.
In light of the foregoing, in view of the specific circumstance of this case, these producers, which represented 36,3 % of the total production of the product concerned in the EU, can be considered to constitute a major proportion of the total Union industry and consequently within the meaning of Article 4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Glede na navedeno in ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin tega primera je za te proizvajalce, ki so predstavljali 36,3 % celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v EU, mogoče trditi, da predstavljajo glavni delež celotne industrije Unije, in jih posledično obravnavati v smislu člena 4.1 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
Furthermore, as mentioned, since all the largest known producers in the EU came forward upon initiation, within the deadline laid down in the original Notice of Initiation, the selected sample in the original investigation can be considered as representative, even after the inclusion of a further 18 EU producers in the definition of the Union industry.
Poleg tega je, v skladu z navedenim, saj so se vsi največji znani proizvajalci v EU odzvali na vabilo v roku iz prvotnega obvestila o začetku, izbrani vzorec v prvotni preiskavi mogoče šteti za reprezentativnega, in sicer tudi po vključitvi nadaljnjih 18 proizvajalcev EU v opredelitev industrije Unije.
The Chinese Chamber of Commerce argued that the Commission could not limit itself to use the data received from the EU producers that came forward within the deadline mentioned in recital 112 above as certain EU producers may have chosen not to manifest themselves since they were not willing to form part of the sample and therefore knew that their response would be disregarded.
Kitajska trgovinska zbornica je trdila, da se Komisija ne bi smela omejiti na uporabo podatkov, pridobljenih od proizvajalcev EU, ki so se javili v roku iz uvodne izjave 112 zgoraj, saj so se nekateri proizvajalci EU odločili, da se ne bodo odzvali, ker niso želeli biti del vzorca, in so zato vedeli, da se njihov odgovor ne bo upošteval.
The association of Chinese exporters requested the Commission ‘to start the whole selection process anew and contact all EU producers without referring to the fact that the producers must be willing to form part of the sample’ [9].
Združenje kitajskih izvoznikov je Komisijo pozvalo, „naj začne celoten izbirni postopek znova in naj stopi v stik z vsemi proizvajalci EU brez zahteve, da morajo proizvajalci biti pripravljeni biti del vzorca“ [9].
However, in the light of the above, it was considered that there was no need to reopen the process of selecting a final sample, as the largest known EU producers came forward at initiation stage.
Vendar je bilo ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega sklenjeno, da ni potrebe po ponovitvi postopka izbire končnega vzorca, saj so se največji znani proizvajalci EU odzvali na začetni stopnji.
Following the disclosure, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce reiterated that it could not be excluded that a large number of producers simply did not respond to the sampling questionnaire ‘precisely because they know that their unwillingness to form part of the sample would automatically result in their exclusion from the domestic industry’.
Po razkritju je kitajska trgovinska zbornica ponovno poudarila, da ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da veliko število proizvajalcev preprosto ni odgovorilo na vprašalnik za vzorčenje, „saj vedo, da bi njihova nepripravljenost sodelovati v vzorcu samodejno povzročila njihovo izključitev iz domače industrije“.
It should be noted that the same arguments has been put forward by Chinese exporting producers and European importers during the original investigation who were arguing against the existence of standing.
Opozoriti je treba, da so bili med prvotno preiskavo navedeni isti argumenti kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in evropskih uvoznikov, ki so nasprotovali obstoju pravnega interesa.
As explained in recital 26 of the definitive Regulation, the Commission contacted a significant number of Union producers after the initiation of the proceeding and only a few of them replied.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 26 dokončne uredbe, je Komisija po začetku postopka stopila v stik s številnimi proizvajalci Unije in le malo jih odgovorilo.
It should be noted that no reference was made to their possible inclusion or not in the final sampling.
Opozoriti je treba, da njihova možna vključitev v končno vzorčenje ni bila omenjena.
In fact, the possible selection of Union producers in the final sample was irrelevant in their decision to come forward during the proceeding, as their decision was motivated by other factors, as those highlighted in recital 115 above.
Dejansko možen izbor proizvajalcev Unije v končni vzorec ni igrala vloge pri njihovi odločitvi, da se javijo med postopkom, saj je bila posledica drugih dejavnikov, kot je poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi 115.
Therefore, the request addressed to the Commission that the Commission should conduct the injury assessment anew was rejected.
Zato je bila zahteva, naslovljena na Komisijo, da bi morala Komisija ponovno opraviti oceno škode, zavrnjena.
Following the Reports, the injury findings established in the original investigation were re-examined at the level of the Union industry as defined according to recital 114 above, for trends concerning production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales, unit prices, market share, employment and productivity, i.e. from the information collected with regard to the 6 sampled producers and the further 57 producers now forming part of the Union industry.
V skladu s poročili so bile ugotovitve o škodi, ki so bile pridobljene v prvotni preiskavi, ponovno preučene na ravni industrije Unije v skladu z uvodno izjavo 114 zgoraj za trende glede proizvodnje, proizvodne zmogljivosti, izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti, prodaje, cen enot, tržnega deleža, zaposlovanja in produktivnosti, tj. na podlagi informacij, zbranih pri 6 vzorčenih proizvajalcih in nadaljnjih 57 proizvajalcih, ki so zdaj del industrije Unije.
With respect to other injury factors found for the sampled EU industry, since information regarding stocks, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, ability to raise capital and wages were obtained from the verified questionnaire responses of the 6 sampled producers, the findings are therefore confirmed in the review.
Ob upoštevanju drugih dejavnikov škode, ki so bili ugotovljeni za vzorčeno industrijo EU, – glede na to, da so bile informacije o zalogah, dobičkonosnosti, denarnem toku, investicijah, donosnosti naložb, zmožnosti zbiranja kapitala in plačah pridobljene iz preverjenih odgovorov na vprašalnik 6 vzorčenih proizvajalcev – so ugotovitve zato potrjene v pregledu.
The evolution of production, production capacity and capacity utilisation for the Union industry based on the whole information available (see recital 112) was the following:
Razvoj proizvodnje, proizvodna zmogljivost in izkoriščenost zmogljivosti za industrijo Unije na podlagi celotnih razpoložljivih informacij (glej uvodno izjavo 112) so bili naslednji:
Total Union Industry
Celotna industrija Unije
Production in volume (MT)
Količina proizvodnje (v tonah)
Production Capacity (MT)
Proizvodna zmogljivost (v tonah)
Despite the significant increase in demand of 29 % between 2004 and the IP, the Union industry’s production volume fluctuated throughout the period considered and was 9 % higher in the IP compared to 2003 to be compared with 6 % in the original investigation, i.e. still significantly lower than the increase in demand of 29 %.
Kljub bistvenemu povečanju povpraševanja za 29 % med letom 2004 in OP je obseg proizvodnje industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju nihal in je bil v OP 9 % višji kot v letu 2003, pri čemer je v prvotni preiskavi znašal 6 %, tj. še vedno bistveno manjši od 29-odstotnega povečanja povpraševanja.
With regard to production capacity and capacity utilisation, the conclusions reached in the original investigation, albeit on a different set of data, were confirmed (see recitals 130 to 133 of the definitive Regulation).
Glede na proizvodno zmogljivost in izkoriščenost kapacitet so bili sklepi, doseženi v prvotni preiskavi, čeprav z drugačnim naborom podatkov, potrjeni (glej uvodne izjave 130 do 133 dokončne uredbe).
Sales, market share, growth and average unit prices in the Union
Prodaja, tržni delež, rast in povprečne cene enot v Uniji
The figures below represent the Union industry’s sales to independent customers in the Union based (in volume and value) on the whole information available:
Spodnji podatki predstavljajo prodajo industrije Unije neodvisnim strankam v Uniji na podlagi (v količini in vrednosti) celotnih razpoložljivih informacij:
Total Union industry
Celotna industrija Unije
Sales of the Union industry in the Union (thousand EUR)
Prodaja industrije Unije v Uniji (v 000 EUR)
Sales of the Union industry in the Union (MT)
Prodaja industrije Unije v Uniji (v tonah)
Unit selling price of the Union industry in the Union (EUR/MT)
Prodajna cena industrije Unije v Uniji (v EUR/tono)
Market share of Union Industry (%)
Tržni delež industrije Unije (v %)
The revised data reported in the above table confirms the findings outlined in recitals 137 to 140 of the definitive Regulation in so far as all the injury trends are confirmed.
Revidirani podatki iz zgornje razpredelnice potrjujejo ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 137 do 140 dokončne uredbe, kolikor so vsi trendi škode potrjeni.
Union industry’s sales volumes increased by 14 % during the period considered, instead of 12 % found in the original investigation and by 30 % in value, instead of 21 %.
Količina prodaje industrije Unije se je v obravnavanem obdobju povečala za 14 % in ne za 12 %, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi, ter za 30 % in ne za 21 % vrednosti.
Trends are in fact found to be very similar as in the original investigation.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so trendi zelo podobni kot v prvotni preiskavi.
The same drop in sales volumes between 2004 and 2005 confirms the conclusion mentioned in recital 139 of the definitive Regulation that the Union industry was unable to take advantage of the increase in Union consumption and thus the market share of the Union producers declined by 20 % in less than three years.
Enak padec obsega prodaje med letoma 2004 in 2005 potrjuje sklep iz uvodne izjave 139 dokončne uredbe, da industrija Unije ni bila zmožna izkoristiti povečanja potrošnje Unije, zato se je tržni delež proizvajalcev Unije zmanjšal za 20 % v manj kot treh letih.
The evolution of employment and productivity in the Union industry was as follows:
Razvoj zaposlovanja in produktivnost industrije Unije sta naslednja:
Productivity (MT/employee)
Produktivnost (tona/zaposlenega)
In the light of the above, the conclusions mentioned in recitals 153 to 161 of the definitive Regulation were confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 153 do 161 dokončne uredbe potrjeni.
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission took into account the conclusions of the DSB Reports suggesting that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the consideration of the volume of dumped imports in the fasteners original investigation.
Kot je navedeno v obvestilu o začetku, je Komisija upoštevala sklepe poročil DSB, ki navajajo, da je EU ravnala v neskladju s členoma 3.1 in 3.2 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO v zvezi z upoštevanjem obsega dampinškega uvoza v prvotni preiskavi o pritrdilnih elementih.
Consequently, the Commission re-examined its injury assessment in light of the fact that some exporting producers were found not to be dumping in the IP.
Komisija je zato ponovno preiskala svojo oceno škode ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je bilo za nekatere proizvajalce izvoznike ugotovljeno, da niso izvajali dampinga v OP.
It is recalled that in the original investigation, two Chinese exporting producers were not dumping.
Opozoriti je treba, da v prvotni preiskavi dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika nista izvajala dampinga.
As mentioned in recital 105 above, one further exporting producer was found not to be dumping in this review.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 105 zgoraj, je bilo za enega nadaljnjega proizvajalca izvoznika v tem poročilu ugotovljeno, da ne izvaja dampinga.
The total import volume from these three exporting producers accounted for only between 0,01 % and 0,40 % of total imports of the product concerned from the PRC in the IP.
Celoten obseg uvoza teh treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov je predstavljal le med 0,01 % in 0,40 % celotnega uvoza zadevnega izdelka iz LRK v OP.
The injury analysis regarding the evolution of imports from the PRC which has been carried out on the basis of the volume of dumped imports excluding the non-dumped imports shows insignificant changes in the trends described in recital 121 of the definitive Regulation.
Analiza škode glede na razvoj uvoza iz LRK, ki je bila izvedena na podlagi obsega dampinškega uvoza in brez nedampinškega uvoza, kaže nepomembne spremembe trendov, opisane v uvodni izjavi 121 dokončne uredbe.
Import volumes from PRC (MT)
Obseg uvoza iz LRK (v tonah)
Causation — export performance of the Union industry
Vzročna zveza – izvoz industrije Unije
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission reassessed its causation analysis in order to take into account the conclusions of the Reports suggesting that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by taking into account the overall export statistical data reported by Eurostat instead of the EU industry’s specific export performance.
Kot je navedeno v obvestilu o začetku, je Komisija ponovno preučila svojo analizo vzročne zveze, da bi upoštevala zaključke poročil, ki navajajo, da je EU ravnala v neskladju s členoma 3.1 in 3.5 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, ker je upoštevala celotne statistične podatke o izvozu, o katerih je poročal Eurostat, namesto specifičnega izvoza industrije EU.