natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, in its request, the party also mentioned the Brosmann Judgement [25] of the Court and seemed to imply that on that basis, producers in the PRC should be allowed to submit MET claim forms even if they did not export the product concerned to the Union during the current investigation period.
Stran je v tej zahtevi tudi navedla sodbo Brosmann [25] Sodišča in dozdevno trdila, da bi moralo biti proizvajalcem v LRK dovoljeno predložiti obrazce zahtevkov za TGO, tudi če zadevnega izdelka niso izvažali v Unijo v sedanjem preiskovalnem obdobju.
It is noted that the judgement does not address the situation of MET claims by exporting producers who did not export during the investigation period and is therefore not relevant in the present context.
Ugotovljeno je, da sodba ne obravnava položaja zahtevkov za TGO proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki niso izvažali v preiskovalnem obdobju, zato v obravnavanem okviru ni relevantna.
Consequently, the request was rejected.
Zahteva je bila zato zavrnjena.
It was also argued that export prices for the companies without exports to the Union in the RIP should be determined on the basis of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on any other reasonable basis.
Trdila je tudi, da bi bilo treba izvozne cene za družbe, ki v OPP niso izvažale v Unijo, določiti na podlagi člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe, tj. na kateri koli drugi razumni podlagi.
In this regard it is noted that Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation does not positively imply that an export price shall be constructed for producers of the concerned country in the case that they did not export any quantity to the Union.
V zvezi s tem je ugotovljeno, da člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe dejansko ne navaja, da je treba za proizvajalce zadevne države konstruirati izvozno ceno, če v Unijo niso izvažali.
On the contrary, Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation refers to the re-sales price of the imported product as a basis to construct the export price, and to adjustments for all costs incurred between importation and resale, which implies that imports to the Union were in fact made.
Nasprotno, člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe zadeva ceno nadaljnje prodaje uvoženega izdelka kot podlago za konstrukcijo izvozne cene in prilagoditve za vse stroške, nastale med uvozom in nadaljnjo prodajo, kar pomeni, da je bil uvoz v Unijo dejansko izveden.
The ‘any other reasonable basis’ in the first sentence of this provision refers to specific cases where the preceding methodologies mentioned therein cannot be applied.
„Katera koli druga razumna podlaga“ v prvem stavku te določbe zadeva posebne primere, v katerih predhodnih metodologij, navedenih v njej, ni mogoče uporabiti.
It does not detract from the fact that the Article implies that imports into the Union have taken place during the RIP.
To ne spremeni dejstva, da člen navaja, da se je uvoz v Unijo v OPP izvajal.
On the basis of the above, none of the Chinese groups that had requested MET could show that they fulfilled the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega nobena od kitajskih skupin, ki so zahtevale TGO, ni mogla dokazati, da izpolnjuje vsa merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
It was therefore considered that MET should be rejected for all these groups.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da se odobritev TGO zavrne vsem tem skupinam.
By Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 [26], which entered into force on 6 September 2012, the European Parliament and the Council amended Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Z Uredbo (EU) št. 765/2012 [26], ki je začela veljati 6. septembra 2012, sta Evropski parlament in Svet spremenila člen 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 stipulated that the amendment is only to apply to investigations initiated following its entry into force.
Člen 2 Uredbe (EU) št. 765/2012 je določal, da se sprememba uporablja le za preiskave, ki so se začele po začetku veljavnosti uredbe.
Consequently, as the current investigation was initiated on 9 March 2012, the amendment did not apply to the current investigation.
Ker se je sedanja preiskava začela 9. marca 2012, se zanjo sprememba torej ni uporabljala.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a countrywide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, that their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions and terms of the sales are freely determined, that exchange rates are carried out at market rates, and that any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se za države iz člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe določi morebitna dajatev na ravni države, razen v primerih, kadar lahko družbe v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe dokažejo, da so njihove izvozne cene in količine ter pogoji prodaje prosto oblikovani, da se pretvorbe valut opravljajo po tržnih stopnjah in da vmešavanje države ne omogoča izogibanja ukrepom, če so izvoznikom dodeljene različne stopnje dajatev.
The three cooperating exporting groups which requested MET also claimed individual treatment in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Tri sodelujoče izvozne skupine, ki so zahtevale TGO, so zahtevale tudi individualno obravnavo, če jim TGO ne bi bila odobrena.
On the basis of the information available, it is established that all three groups in the PRC meet all the requirements for individual treatment.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij je ugotovljeno, da vse tri skupine v LRK izpolnjujejo vse zahteve za individualno obravnavo.
Analogue country
3.1 Primerljiva država
For this purpose, in the Notice of initiation the Commission suggested Mexico, which was also the analogue country used in the previous investigation concerning the PRC.
V ta namen je Komisija v obvestilu o začetku predlagala Mehiko, ki je bila uporabljena kot primerljiva država tudi v predhodni preiskavi v zvezi z LRK.
All interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the choice of analogue country envisaged.
Vse zainteresirane strani so imele možnost dati pripombe na izbiro predvidene primerljive države.
One party argued that Mexico did not represent the best choice of analogue country, but that Taiwan was a better option due to the fact that Taiwan is a major producer of bicycles, had greater commonality with the PRC than Mexico and is likely to result in a more reliable normal value.
Ena stran je trdila, da Mehika kot primerljiva država ni bila najboljša izbira in da je primernejši Tajvan, ker je ta država velika proizvajalka koles, ima več skupnega z LRK kot Mehika ter bo verjetno zagotovila zanesljivejšo normalno vrednost.
The Commission tried to obtain cooperation from 15 countries, namely Bangladesh, Canada, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and USA.
Komisija si je prizadevala pridobiti sodelovanje 15 držav, in sicer Bangladeša, Kanade, Kambodže, Indije, Indonezije, Malezije, Mehike, Norveške, Filipinov, Šrilanke, Tajvana, Tajske, Tunizije, Turčije in ZDA.
The Commission received replies to the questionnaire only from three Mexican producers of bicycles which also accepted a verification of their response at their premises.
Komisija je prejela izpolnjene vprašalnike le od treh mehiških proizvajalcev koles, ki so tudi sprejeli preverjanje njihovih odgovorov v njihovih prostorih.
No other companies from any contacted countries cooperated.
Nobena druga družba iz držav, s katerimi je bil vzpostavljen stik, ni sodelovala.
The imports of bicycles in 2011 were originating principally in the PRC (more than 60 %) and Taiwan (20 %).
Kolesa so leta 2011 uvažali zlasti iz LRK (več kot 60 %) in Tajvana (20 %).
These imports represented some 5 % of the domestic market (source: annual report of ANAFABI, the Mexican association of bicycle manufacturers).
Ta uvoz je zajemal približno 5 % domačega trga (vir: letno poročilo ANAFABI-ja, mehiškega združenja proizvajalcev koles).
The Mexican market profile for the product concerned, number of operators, domestic competition and the features of production process confirmed that Mexico was still an appropriate analogue country.
Profil mehiškega trga za zadevni izdelek, število subjektov, domača konkurenca in značilnosti proizvodnega postopka so potrdili, da je Mehika še vedno ustrezna primerljiva država.
In view of the above, the Mexican market could be considered to be representative and competitive.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je mehiški trg lahko bil obravnavan kot reprezentativen in konkurenčen.
Determination of normal value in the analogue country
3.2 Določitev normalne vrednosti v primerljivi državi
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producers in the analogue country as set out below.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe je bila normalna vrednost določena na podlagi preverjenih informacij proizvajalcev v primerljivi državi, kot je navedeno spodaj.
The investigation showed that the product concerned was sold in representative quantities on the Mexican domestic market.
Preiskava je pokazala, da se je zadevni izdelek na mehiškem domačem trgu prodajal v reprezentativnih količinah.
Furthermore, it was analysed whether it could be considered as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je bila opravljena analiza, ali se lahko šteje, da se je prodajal v okviru običajnega poteka trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
Where sales volume of a product type, sold at net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price.
Kadar je obseg prodaje neke vrste izdelka, prodajane po neto prodajni ceni, ki je bila enaka izračunanim stroškom proizvodnje ali višja, pomenil več kot 80 % celotnega obsega prodaje navedene vrste in kadar je bila tehtana povprečna cena navedene vrste enaka ali višja kot stroški proizvodnje, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni.
This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the RIP, irrespective of whether the sales were profitable or not.
Ta cena je bila izračunana kot tehtano povprečje cen celotne domače prodaje navedene vrste med OPP, ne glede na to, ali je bila prodaja dobičkonosna ali ne.
Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represent 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.
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, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtano povprečje dobičkonosnih prodaj samo navedene vrste.
Moreover, the investigation did not reveal any product type where no profitable sales were made.
Poleg tega preiskava za nobeno vrsto izdelka ni pokazala, da zanjo ne bi bilo dobičkonosne prodaje.
In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Union, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.
V vseh primerih, kadar je bil zadevni izdelek izvožen neodvisnim strankam v Uniji, je bila izvozna cena določena v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe, in sicer na podlagi dejansko plačanih ali plačljivih izvoznih cen.
In cases where sales were made via a related importer or trader, the export prices were constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the resale prices of that related importer to first independent customers in the Union.
Kadar je bila prodaja opravljena prek povezanega uvoznika ali trgovca, so bile izvozne cene konstruirane v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe na podlagi cen nadaljnje prodaje tega povezanega uvoznika prvim neodvisnim strankam v Uniji.
With respect to profit margin, the profit realised by an unrelated importer/trader of the product concerned was used since the actual profit of the related importer/trader was not considered reliable because of the relationship between the exporting producers and the related importer/trader.
V zvezi s stopnjo dobička je bil uporabljen dobiček, ki ga ustvari nepovezani uvoznik/trgovec zadevnega izdelka, saj se je za dejanski dobiček povezanega uvoznika/trgovca štelo, da zaradi odnosa med proizvajalci izvozniki in povezanim uvoznikom/trgovcem ni zanesljiv.
As stated in recitals 63 and 64, Giant China refused to provide the Commission’s services with the necessary information on the structure of the group and essential information concerning production, export sales volume and prices of the product concerned to the Union in the RIP of the companies part of Jinshan Development and Construction Ltd group (‘Jinshan Group’) involved in the production and sale of the product concerned in the PRC and consequently, Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied concerning the export price.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 63 in 64, družba Giant China službam Komisije ni želela predložiti potrebnih informacij o strukturi skupine ter ključnih informacij glede proizvodnje, obsega izvoza in cen zadevnega izdelka za Unijo v OPP družb, ki so del skupine Jinshan Development and Construction Ltd („skupina Jinshan“) in vključene v proizvodnjo ter prodajo zadevnega izdelka v LRK, zato je bil v zvezi z izvozno ceno uporabljen člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe.
Giant China challenged the application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation both in respect of refusal of MET and application of facts available to the export price calculations.
Giant China je izpodbijala uporabo člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe v zvezi z zavrnitvijo TGO in uporabo razpoložljivih dejstev za izračune izvoznih cen.
It argued that the information requested by the Commission was not necessary for the calculation of the dumping margin.
Trdila je, da informacije, ki jih je zahtevala Komisija, za izračun stopnje dampinga niso bile potrebne.
In this regard, Giant China argued that the information requested from Jinshan Group located in the PRC was not pertinent for the MET assessment or export price calculations as it was only very indirectly related to Giant China and its related companies (‘Giant Group’).
V zvezi s tem je Giant China trdila, da informacije, ki jih je zahtevala skupina Jinshan s sedežem v LRK, za oceno TGO ali izračune izvoznih cen niso bile koristne, saj je bila ta družba zelo posredno povezana z družbo Giant China in njenimi povezanimi družbami („skupina Giant“).
However, the investigation has confirmed that one of Giant Group’s subsidiaries, actively producing and exporting the product concerned to the Union during part of the RIP, namely Shanghai Giant & Phoenix Bicycles Co Ltd (‘GP’), was related, via common shareholding, structural and management links to Jinshan Group and that this group was involved in the production and sales of the product concerned.
Vendar je preiskava potrdila, da je bila ena od podrejenih družb skupine Giant, ki je nekaj časa v OPP dejavno proizvajala in izvažala zadevni izdelek v Unijo, tj. Shanghai Giant & Phoenix Bicycles Co Ltd („GP“), povezana s skupino Jinshan, ki je bila vključena v proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka, in sicer prek kapitalskih, strukturnih in vodstvenih povezav.
In the absence of a reply to the MET claim form and the anti-dumping questionnaire from the companies part of Jinshan Group that were involved in the production and sales of the product concerned in the PRC, it could not be assessed to what extent the production and sales of the product concerned of Jinshan Group had an impact on the export price determination with regard to GP and as a consequence for the Giant as a whole group.
Ker družbe, ki so del skupine Jinshan in so bile vključene v proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka v LRK, niso izpolnile obrazca zahtevka za TGO in protidampinškega vprašalnika, ni bilo mogoče oceniti, v kako velikem obsegu je proizvodnja in prodaja zadevnega izdelka skupine Jinshan učinkovala na določitev izvozne cene v zvezi z GP ter s tem na skupino Giant kot celoto.
It could further not be investigated whether the conditions of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation were met.
Nadaljnja preiskava, ali so bili izpolnjeni pogoji člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, ni bila mogoča.
In the absence of cooperation in this respect, Giant China’s claims had to be rejected.
Ker v zvezi s tem ni bilo sodelovanja, je bilo treba trditve družbe Giant China zavrniti.
Furthermore, Giant China argued that there is no need to take into account price information relating to other exporting producers when calculating the individual margin of an exporting producer unless Giant Group and Jinshan Group form a single entity in view of the existing close financial, commercial and management links.
Giant China je nadalje trdila, da pri izračunu individualne stopnje proizvajalca izvoznika ni treba upoštevati informacij o ceni v zvezi z drugimi proizvajalci izvozniki, razen če skupini Giant in Jinshan tvorita en sam subjekt glede na obstoječe tesne finančne, poslovne in vodstvene povezave.
The evidence on the file supports the finding that GP and Jinshan Group are related and have close shareholding, structural and management links.
Dokazi v dokumentaciji podpirajo ugotovitev, da sta GP in skupina Jinshan povezani ter imata tesne kapitalske, strukturne in vodstvene povezave.
In the absence of complete information on all parties related to GP, in particular on the Chinese bicycle exporting producers that are subsidiaries of Jinshan Group, it is impossible to perform complete and reliable calculations on the export price and therefore to obtain an individual margin determination for GP and as a consequence for the Giant Group as a whole.
Ker ni popolnih informacij o vseh straneh, povezanih z GP, zlasti o kitajskih proizvajalcih izvoznikih koles, ki so podrejene družbe skupine Jinshan, ni mogoče izvesti popolnih in zanesljivih izračunov o izvozni ceni ter s tem določiti individualne stopnje za GP in za skupino Giant kot celoto.
It was also claimed that the information requested placed an unreasonable burden on Giant China and that it acted to the best of its ability in the investigation.
Giant China je tudi trdila, da so zahtevane informacije zanjo pomenile nerazumno breme in da je v preiskavi ravnala po svojih najboljših močeh.
In this regard it should be noted that no evidence was submitted, until comments to definitive disclosure, showing that Giant China made any efforts to collect the information required in the MET claim form and the anti-dumping questionnaire for the companies part of Jinshan Group, involved in the production and sale of the product concerned.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da se pred pripombami o dokončnem razkritju niso predložili nobeni dokazi o tem, da si je Giant China kakor koli prizadevala zbrati informacije, zahtevane v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO in protidampinškem vprašalniku za družbe, ki so del skupine Jinshan ter so vključene v proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka.
During the investigation Giant China claimed that it was unnecessary to provide the information requested but did not claim that obtaining such information was unreasonable burdensome.
Med preiskavo je Giant China trdila, da je bila zagotovitev zahtevanih informacij nepotrebna, ni pa trdila, da je bilo pridobivanje takšnih informacij nerazumno obremenjujoče.
Giant China submitted evidence of alleged efforts only after final disclosure, at a stage where such information was unverifiable.
Giant China je predložila dokaze o domnevnih prizadevanjih šele po končnem razkritju, na tej stopnji pa teh informacij ni bilo mogoče preveriti.
It could therefore not be taken into account anymore.
Zato jih ni bilo več mogoče upoštevati.
Therefore, the production activity could have resumed at any moment in the future and the fact the GP allegedly ceased all operations in September 2011 is not relevant.
Zato bi se lahko proizvodna dejavnost kadar koli v prihodnosti nadaljevala in torej ni pomembno, da je GP domnevno prenehala s poslovanjem septembra 2011.
In addition, Giant China argued that the risk of circumvention could have been addressed in a different manner i.e. the monitoring clause mentioned in recitals 276 and 277 below.
Poleg tega je Giant China trdila, da bi se tveganje za izogibanje ukrepom lahko obravnavalo na drugačen način, npr. kot navaja klavzula o spremljanju, navedena v uvodnih izjavah 276 in 277.
In this regard, it should be noted that the monitoring clause only applies to unrelated companies, so the risks involved are not of similar nature and the same remedies could not have been applied.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da klavzula o spremljanju velja le za nepovezane družbe, torej narava zajetih tveganj ni podobna in enakih ukrepov ni bilo mogoče uporabiti.
Indeed, even if this would have been the case, GP could have resumed its bicycles production and sales activities anytime and an on-spot verification would not have decreased such risk.
Tudi če bi bilo to res, bi lahko GP kadar koli nadaljevala z dejavnostmi proizvodnje koles in prodaje, pri čemer preveritev na kraju samem tega tveganja ne bi zmanjšala.
In this regard, should Giant request a review of their situation following the sale of the shares, this can be considered in due time in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je skupina Giant zahtevala pregled svojega stanja po prodaji delnic, kar se v skladu z določbami osnovne uredbe lahko šteje za pravočasno.
In the same submissions Giant China provided other clarifications to the Commission assessment warranting application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.
V istih predložitvah je Giant China zagotovila še druga pojasnila k oceni Komisije, ki je utemeljevala uporabo člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe.
However, they were not as such as to change the Commission’s initial assessment.
Vendar niso zadostovala, da bi spremenila prvotno oceno Komisije.
Therefore, the findings concerning application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation in relation to Giant Group are confirmed.
Zato so ugotovitve o uporabi člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe v zvezi s skupino Giant potrjene.
Adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of indirect taxes, discounts, level of trade, transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by evidence.
Pri stroških posrednih davkov, popustov, ravni trgovanja, prevoza, zavarovanja, manipulativnih in drugih zadevnih stroških, stroških pakiranja, kredita in bančnih stroških so se po potrebi vnesle prilagoditve v vseh primerih, ko je bilo ugotovljeno, da so smiselne, točne in podprte z dokazi.
For the cooperating exporting producers
6.1 Za sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike
For the three cooperating companies, dumping margins were established by comparing the weighted average normal value established for the cooperating Mexican producers with each company’s weighted average export price to the Union, as provided for in Article 2(11) and 2(12) of the basic Regulation.
Za tri sodelujoče družbe so bile stopnje dampinga določene s primerjavo tehtane povprečne normalne vrednosti, določene za sodelujoče mehiške proizvajalce, in tehtano povprečno izvozno ceno vsake družbe pri izvozu v Unijo, kot določata člena 2(11) in 2(12) osnovne uredbe.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are:
Stopnje dampinga, izražene kot delež cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve, so:
For all other exporting producers
6.2 Za vse druge proizvajalce izvoznike