natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the absence of any comments in this respect, recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo nobene pripombe, se potrdita uvodni izjavi 47 in 48 začasne uredbe.
In light of the above, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price duty unpaid, are the following:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega so dokončne stopnje dampinga, izražene kot odstotek cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve, naslednje:
Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related producer Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Dangyang City, Hubei Province:
Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Sanmen, Zhejiang in njen povezan proizvajalec Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd., Dangyang City, Hubei Province:
Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample:
sodelujoči proizvajalci izvozniki, ki niso vključeni v vzorec:
All other companies:
vse druge družbe:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE XINSHIJI JUDGMENT
IZVAJANJE SODBE XINSHIJI
Premature reopening
Predčasna obnova
The exporters concerned and a group of importers argued against the partial reopening prior to the delivery of the judgment in Case C-338/10.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov so nasprotovali delni obnovi pred izrekom sodbe v zadevi C-338/10.
It was argued that reopening the investigation while the validity of the original Regulation was challenged and, in the opinion of the parties concerned, the act was likely to be declared void, breached the principles of proportionality and of good administration in the light of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it unnecessarily placed an undue burden on the parties concerned to devote significant financial and personal resources to the reopened procedure.
Trdili so, da obnova preiskave v času, ko se izpodbija veljavnost prvotne uredbe, in po mnenju strank v postopku je bilo verjetno, da bo akt razglašen za ničnega, krši načela sorazmernosti in dobrega upravljanja v smislu člena 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, ker po nepotrebnem nalaga nepotrebno breme na stranke v postopku s tem, ko obnovljenemu postopku namenjajo znatne finančne in človeške vire.
In addition, the same parties also argued that reopening the investigation before the judgment in the appeal Case C-195/11 P was premature and contrary to Articles 266 and 264 TFEU and Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice alleging that the Commission was anticipating the success of its own appeal.
Nekatere strani so tudi trdile, da je obnova preiskave pred izrekom sodbe v pritožbi v zadevi C-195/11P predčasna in v nasprotju s členoma 266 in 264 PDEU ter členom 60(2) Statuta Sodišča, ker naj bi Komisija predpostavljala, da bo s svojo pritožbo uspela.
Such initiation contradicted the relationship between, on the one hand, the Commission and the Council and on the other, the Court and it impaired the right to an effective court remedy.
Tak začetek je bil v navzkrižju z odnosom med, na eni strani, Komisijo in Svetom ter Sodiščem na drugi strani in je vplivala na pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
The importers concerned requested that the Commission first await the final decision of the Court before it reopens the anti-dumping proceeding to implement the judgment in question.
Zadevni uvozniki so zahtevali, naj Komisija najprej počaka končno odločitev Sodišča, preden obnovi protidampinški postopek za izvajanje zadevne sodbe.
The exporters concerned and a group of importers argued that the reopening violated Article 3 of the basic Regulation as it was based on the data collected during the investigation period (i.e. 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007) and not during a more recent period.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov je trdila, da obnova krši člen 3 osnovne uredbe ker temelji na podatkih, zbranih v obdobju preiskave (tj. od 1. oktobra 2006 do 30. septembra 2007) in ne v poznejšem obdobju.
A group of importers challenged the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s conduct pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the grounds that the Commission allegedly rejected an application by the Union importers to launch a full interim review, even though the official Eurostat data already showed an increase on a sustained and lasting basis of the import price.
Skupina uvoznikov je izpodbijala pravičnost in nepristranskost ravnanja Komisije na podlagi člena 41(1) Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, ker naj bi Komisija domnevno zavrnila prošnjo uvoznikov Unije, da uvede polni vmesni pregled, čeprav so uradni podatki Eurostata že pokazali vztrajno in trajno rast uvozne cene.
The exporters concerned and a group of importers argued that the reopening was destined to fail for the reason that the infringement of the rights of defence and the failure to state reasons in case of a definitive anti-dumping regulation cannot be rectified in isolation and retroactively.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov je trdila, da bo obnova neuspešna, ker kršitev pravic do obrambe in nenavedbe razlogov v primeru dokončne protidampinške uredbe ni mogoče odpraviti ločeno in retroaktivno.
In particular, it was argued that the rights of defence of the interested parties were to be protected during the ongoing anti-dumping proceeding, i.e. before adoption of the measure, and the proper statement of reasons for the definitive anti-dumping regulation was to be provided no later than at the adoption of the original Regulation.
Trdili so zlasti, da bi bilo treba pravice do obrambe zainteresiranih strani zaščititi med tekočim protidampinškim postopkom, tj. pred sprejetjem ukrepa, in da bi bilo treba ustrezno obrazložitev dokončne protidampinške uredbe zagotoviti najpozneje ob sprejetju prvotne uredbe.
It was also argued that a legal act based on an inadequate statement of reason is, and remains, ineffective from the start and the intended measure can only become effective by adopting a new legal act with a proper statement of reasons.
Trdili so tudi, da pravni akt, ki temelji na neustrezni obrazložitvi, je in ostane neveljaven od začetka in da lahko načrtovani ukrep postane veljaven le s sprejetjem novega pravnega akta z ustrezno obrazložitvijo.
Inadequate disclosure
Neustrezno razkritje
The exporters concerned and a group of importers claimed that the disclosure was not sufficient to remedy the legal errors identified by the General Court for the reasons set out below.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov so trdili, da razkritje ni zadostovalo, da bi popravilo pravne napake, ki jih je ugotovilo Splošno sodišče zaradi spodaj navedenih razlogov.
The exporters concerned together with a group of importers argued that the violation of Union law found by the General Court affected the entirety of the findings and the outcome of the injury margin calculation, which required a new process to be launched taking into account the most recent injury data.
Zadevni izvozniki, skupaj s skupino uvoznikov, so trdili, da je kršitev prava Unije, ki jo je ugotovilo Splošno sodišče, vplivala na vse ugotovitve in rezultat izračuna stopnje škode, zaradi katerega je bila potrebna uvedba novega postopka z upoštevanjem najnovejših podatkov o škodi.
Furthermore, the same parties argued that the Commission failed to recognise correctly the scope and consequences of its infringement.
Poleg tega so iste strani trdile, da Komisija ni pravilno ugotovila obsega in posledic svoje kršitve.
It was argued that, contrary to the Commission’s interpretation, the legal infringements established by to General Court did not relate exclusively to the calculation of the 2 % uplift of the import costs of the Chinese products (post-importation costs) and the transport costs of the products produced by Union producers.
Trdile so, da v nasprotju z razlago Komisije kršitve, ki jih je ugotovilo Splošno sodišče, niso bile povezane le z izračunom 2-odstotnega zvišanja stroškov uvoza kitajskih izdelkov (stroški po uvozu) in stroškov prevoza izdelkov, ki jih proizvajajo proizvajalci Unije.
The importers concerned argued that those infringements related at the very least to the entire determination of the injury margin.
Zadevni uvozniki so trdili, da so bile navedene kršitve povezane z vsaj celotno določitvijo stopnje škode.
In this context it was argued that the disclosure sent at the reopening failed to address the question of the comparability of the level of trade and how the method chosen by the Commission for the comparison of the import and Union prices was justified against the background of the market environment concerned, i.e. whether the products produced by Union producers and the imported goods are in fact in competition with each other ‘in the warehouse of the Hamburg importers’.
V tem okviru so trdili, da razkritje, ki je bilo poslano ob obnovi, ni obravnavalo vprašanja skladnosti ravni trgovine in kako je metoda, ki jo je izbrala Komisija za primerjavo uvoznih cen in cen v Uniji utemeljena glede na zadevno tržno okolje, tj., ali so izdelki, ki jih proizvajajo proizvajalci Unije, in uvoženo blago dejansko v medsebojni konkurenci „v skladišču hamburških uvoznikov“.
The exporters concerned and a group of importers argued that the information on the level of trade determination provided at the time of reopening remained far too general to enable the parties to understand why the comparison of the import price and the Union industry price was done at the same level of trade and it largely left unexplained the factors which emerged from the investigation on which that calculation was based.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov je trdila, da so ostale informacije o določitvi ravni trgovine, ki so bile navedene ob obnovi, daleč presplošne, da bi stranem omogočile razumeti, zakaj je bila primerjava uvoznih cen in cen industrije Unije opravljena na enaki ravni trgovine, in niso pojasnile dejavnikov, ki so izhajali iz preiskave, na katerih je temeljil izračun.
It did not deal with the issue why the 2 % uplift in question, which contained neither the operating and administrative expenses (SG&A) nor a profit margin of the importers, was appropriate to achieve comparability of the selling prices of the Union producers with the import prices of the exporting Chinese producers.
Niso obravnavale vprašanja, zakaj je bilo obravnavano 2 % povišanje, ki ni vsebovalo ne operativnih ne upravnih stroškov (prodajni, splošni in upravni stroški), niti marže uvoznikov, primerno, da je bila dosežena primerljivost prodajne cene proizvajalcev Unije z uvoznimi cenami kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The same parties argued that no findings of any kind were made regarding the assumption that the Union producers sold the goods exclusively via importers.
Iste stranke so trdile, da v zvezi s predpostavko, da so proizvajalci Unije blago prodajali izključno prek uvoznikov, ni bilo nobenih ugotovitev.
Also, it was argued that the underlying reasoning for the selected level of trade that the Union producers sold exclusively to importers was refuted since according to the disclosed information only 62 % of the sales of Union producers went to the independent importers.
Trdile so tudi, da je bila utemeljitev, ki je podlaga za izbrano raven trgovine, in sicer, da so proizvajalci Unije prodajali izključno uvoznikom, ovržena, ker je v skladu z razkritimi informacijami le 62 % prodaje proizvajalcev Unije pripadlo neodvisnim uvoznikom.
The parties argued that the Commission appeared to ignore the fact that allegedly 38 % of the Union production had not been sold through importers, meaning that in respect of these sales imported products were competing at a different level of trade.
Stranke so trdile, da je videti, da Komisija zanemarja dejstvo, da 38 % proizvodnje Unije domnevno ni bilo prodane prek uvoznikov, kar pomeni, da so bili glede te prodaje uvoženi izdelki v konkurenci na drugi ravni trgovine.
For this part of sales, it was argued, the method used by the Commission to determine the injury margin was inappropriate as the importers’ prices should have been adjusted by adding post-importation costs, selling, general and administrative expenses and an appropriate profit margin of the independent importer.
Trdili so, da je bila za ta del prodaje metoda, ki jo je Komisija uporabila za določitev stopnje škode, neprimerna, ker bi morala biti cena uvoznikov prilagojena s prištetjem stroškov po uvozu, prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroškov ter ustreznega dobička neodvisnega uvoznika.
In the light of these corrections the injury margin would have been reduced for 38 % of the Union goods, which would lead to an overall reduction in the injury margin and a following substantial reduction in the anti-dumping duties.
Glede na te popravke bi se stopnja škode zmanjšala za 38 % blaga Unije, kar bi povzročilo splošno zmanjšanje stopnje škode in s tem bistveno zmanjšanje protidampinških dajatev.
As a result, the parties argued that the Commission failed to develop an appropriate method to determine the injury margin for all imports which would have taken account of the actual market conditions.
Zaradi tega so stranke trdile, da Komisija ni razvila primerne metode za ugotavljanje stopnje škode za ves uvoz, ki bi upoštevala dejanske razmere na trgu.
It was argued that there was a need for differentiated consideration of the sales of the products of the Union producers for the determination of the injury margin in view of the different distribution channels of the Union producers.
Trdili so, da je potrebna različna obravnava prodaje izdelkov proizvajalcev Unije za določitev stopnje škode zaradi različnih distribucijskih poti, ki jih ti uporabljajo.
The parties called for the Commission to provide a detailed description and analysis of the evidence verified in respect of trade flows and related volumes supporting its findings and to disclose that relevant information, which was not confidential.
Stranke so pozvale Komisijo, naj zagotovi podroben opis in analizo dokazov, preverjenih v zvezi s trgovinskimi tokovi in ustreznimi količinami, ki podpirajo njene ugotovitve, ter naj razkrije ustrezne informacije, ki niso zaupne.
A group of importers also contested the ‘stereotype reference’ to the confidentiality of the data as a result of which the exporting producers and Union importers were barred from access to relevant sources necessary for them to determine whether, in the light of the structure of the market, the adjustment in dispute was appropriate in that it made it possible to compare the export price and the Union industry price at the same level of trade.
Skupina uvoznikov je izpodbijala tudi „stereotipno sklicevanje“ na zaupnost podatkov, zaradi katere proizvajalci izvozniki in uvozniki Unije niso imeli dostopa do ustreznih virov, ki so jih potrebovali za to, da bi ugotovili, ali je bila glede na strukturo trga sporna prilagoditev primerna za primerjavo izvozne cene in prodajne cene industrije Unije na isti ravni trgovine.
The importers concerned argued that this claim was upheld by the General Court in paragraph 86 of the Xinshiji judgment.
Zadevni uvozniki so trdili, da je to zahtevo podprlo Splošno sodišče v odstavku 86 sodbe Xinshiji.
The exporters concerned opposed the increase of the Union industry’s ex-works selling price to include the costs of delivering to the importer’s warehouse on the grounds that it goes against the concept of internal market and that the trade defence measures are not meant to remedy cost disadvantages of the Union industry due to the location of its production facilities.
Zadevni izvozniki so nasprotovali povečanju prodajne cene industrije Unije franko tovarna, da bi vključevala stroške dostave v skladišče uvoznika, ker je to v nasprotju s pojmom notranjega trga in ker ukrepi za zaščito trgovine niso namenjeni odpravljanju stroškovnih neugodnosti industrije Unije zaradi lokacije njenih proizvodnih obratov.
The exporters concerned and a group of importers argued that the Commission should have taken into account the fact that the importers had higher transhipment costs because the Chinese products were delivered in containers, while the products produced by Union producers were palletised for transportation by truck and therefore could immediately be re-expedited to customers without any further manipulation, which reduced the handling charges by 50 % or 7 EUR/tonne.
Zadevni izvozniki in skupina uvoznikov je trdila, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati dejstvo, da so imeli uvozniki višje stroške pretovarjanja, ker so bili kitajski izdelki dostavljeni v kontejnerjih, izdelki, ki so jih proizvedli proizvajalci Unije, pa so bili naloženi na palete za prevoz s tovornjaki, zato so se lahko takoj preposlali strankam brez nadaljnje manipulacije, kar je zmanjšalo manipulativne stroške za 50 % ali 7 EUR/tono.
A group of importers argued that the Commission overlooked, for a percentage of the Union industry products which were in fact distributed via an importer, that the transport costs for the Union industry goods to the importers’ warehouse were incurred only if the preserved mandarins had been ‘physically’ made available in the warehouse of the importer concerned.
Skupina uvoznikov je trdila, da je Komisija za del izdelkov industrije Unije, ki so bili dejansko distribuirani prek uvoznika, spregledala, da so bili za blago industrije Unije prevozni stroški do skladišča uvoznika doseženi le, če so bile konzervirane mandarine dane „fizično“ na voljo v skladišče zadevnega uvoznika.
In fact, however, the bulk of the products sold by the Union producers via importers were delivered directly by the Union producers to the importers’ customers.
Dejansko pa so proizvajalci Unije večji del izdelkov, ki so jih prodali prek uvoznikov, dostavili neposredno strankam uvoznika.
This was claimed to procure a considerable cost advantage for the Union producers compared to imported products and, if it had been properly taken into consideration, a smaller injury margin would have resulted than that determined on the basis of the Commission’s calculation method.
To je po trditvah zagotovilo proizvajalcem Unije znatno stroškovno prednost v primerjavi z uvoženimi izdelki, in če bi bilo primerno upoštevano, bi bila izračunana stopnja škode manjša kakor tista, ki je bila določena na podlagi metode izračuna, ki jo je uporabila Komisija.
The association of importers and some importers objected to the figure (EUR 90) used as a basis for the calculation of the transport costs.
Združenje uvoznikov in nekateri uvozniki so nasprotovali podatku (90 EUR), ki je bil uporabljen kot podlaga za izračun stroškov prevoza.
The parties claimed that the transport costs chosen were too high, referring probably to transport by truck.
Stranke so trdile, da so bili izbrani stroški prevoza previsoki in so verjetno veljali za prevoz s tovornjakom.
However, according to the information of the parties, the majority of goods was transported by vessels, which is a much cheaper mode of transport.
Po podatkih strani pa se je večina blaga prevažala s plovili, ki so veliko cenejši način prevoza.
The parties asked for an explanation concerning the inclusion of terminal handling charges and the costs for trucking to the importer’s premises in the post-importation costs.
Stranke so zahtevale pojasnilo v zvezi z vključitvijo stroškov postopkov na terminalu in stroškov prevoza v prostore uvoznika s tovornjakom v stroške po uvozu.
In respect of the argument that the investigation should not have been reopened while the validity of the original Regulation had been challenged in Case C-338/10 (recital 64), the Commission explained that it acted under the presumption of legality.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da preiskava ne bi smela biti obnovljena v času, ko se je veljavnost prvotne uredbe izpodbijala v zadevi C-338/10 (uvodna izjava 64), je Komisija razložila, da je ukrepala na podlagi domneve zakonitosti.
In respect of claims concerning the premature reopening subject to the pending appeal Case C-195/11 P (recital 65) the Commission considers the argument without object, given that the reopening was based on the findings of the General Court.
V zvezi s trditvami o predčasni obnovi na podlagi pritožbe v zadevi C-195/11P (uvodna izjava 65), ki je bila v teku, Komisija meni, da je trditev brezpredmetna, ker je obnova temeljila na ugotovitvah Splošnega sodišča.
Furthermore, the appeal has in the meantime been withdrawn.
Poleg tega je bila medtem pritožba umaknjena.
In respect of the claims for a new investigation it has to be underlined that the partial reopening has as its objective to remedy only of the violation of the rights of defence identified by the General Court, not to reopen the entire proceeding.
V zvezi z zahtevami po novi preiskavi je treba poudariti, da je cilj delne uvedbe odpraviti samo kršitev pravic do obrambe, ki jo je ugotovilo Splošno sodišče, ne obnoviti celoten postopek.
However, the Commission will advise the parties concerned that they have the possibility to request the initiation of an interim review, as prescribed in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, if they want the Institutions to verify their claim that on the basis of more recent data, there is no more injury.
Vendar pa bo Komisija zadevne stranke obvestila, da imajo možnost zahtevati uvedbo vmesnega pregleda, kot je določeno v členu 11(3) osnovne uredbe, če želijo, da institucije preverijo njihovo trditev, da na podlagi novejših podatkov škode ni več.
With regards to the claim that the injury analysis should be based on more recent data (recital 66), it is observed that any more recent data will be influenced by the fact that an antidumping duty has been in place.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da bi morala biti analiza škode opravljena na podlagi novejših podatkov (uvodna izjava 66), je treba opozoriti, da bo na novejše podatke vplivala uvedba protidampinške dajatve.
Therefore, the appropriate instrument to analyse more recent data is an interim review as prescribed in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, and not a new investigation (see also recital 43 above).
Zato je vmesni pregled iz člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe primerni instrument za analizo novejših podatkov in ne nova preiskava (glej tudi uvodno izjavo 43).
As regards the doubt concerning the impartiality and fairness of the proceeding (recital 67), this is based on a misunderstanding that the Commission rejected the request for an interim review.
V zvezi z dvomom glede nepristranskosti in pravičnosti postopka (uvodna izjava 67), ta temelji na nesporazumu, da je Komisija zavrnila zahtevo za vmesni pregled.
The Commission’s Services informed the respective parties by letter of 6 September 2011 that on the basis of the information provided to that date no decision could be taken whether or not a review could be initiated.
Službe Komisije so s pismom z dne 6. septembra 2011 obvestile zadevne strani, da na podlagi informacij, ki so bile poslane do navedenega datuma, ni bilo mogoče sprejeti odločitve, ali je mogoče uvesti pregled ali ne.
The points which required further clarification or evidence were outlined.
Poudarjene so bile točke, kjer so bila potrebna dodatna pojasnila ali dokazila.
The parties were informed about this at the hearing of 29 February 2012 and were invited to continue the discussion with the relevant Commission service.
Stranke so bile o tem obveščene na zaslišanju dne 29. februarja 2012 in so bile povabljene, naj nadaljujejo razpravo z ustrezno službo Komisije.
The Commission services will inform them that they can pursue their request as of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Službe Komisije jih bodo obvestile, da lahko obravnavajo njihovo zahtevo po datumu začetka te uredbe.
The one-year period provided for in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation does not apply in the case at hand, as this would run counter its objective, which is that there should be a minimum amount of time between the initial investigation period and an interim review.
Enoletno obdobje, določeno v členu 11(3) osnovne uredbe v obravnavanem primeru ne velja, ker bi bilo v nasprotju z njegovim ciljem, in sicer, da mora od prvotnega obdobja preiskave do vmesnega pregleda miniti minimalno obdobje.
In the present case, this minimum amount of time has been observed.
V tem primeru je bilo minimalno obdobje spoštovano.