natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, interested parties were informed that the ‘standard’ normal value for an 8.8 strength class fastener (‘G’ in the PCN table), which is a standard type commonly exported by Chinese producers, was calculated in the range of 9 to 12 CNY per kg ex-works.
Zainteresirane strani pa so bile obveščene, da je bila „standardna“ normalna vrednost pritrdilnega elementa trdnostnega razreda 8.8 („G“ v preglednici s kontrolnimi številkami izdelka), kar je standardna vrsta, ki jo običajno izvažajo kitajski proizvajalci, izračunana v razponu med 9 in 12 CNY na kg franko tovarna.
Comments received to the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012
Pripombe, prejete k obvestilu o razkritju informacij z dne 30. maja 2012
One importer and four exporting producers alleged that the time given to parties to comment on the additional information (10 days) was too short.
En uvoznik in štirje proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da je bil čas, ki so ga strani imele za pripombe glede dodatnih informacij (10 dni), prekratek.
However, the Commission considers that the abovementioned time limit was appropriate, given that the information provided was only a supplement to that already disclosed in the definitive Regulation, at the end of the original investigation.
Vendar Komisija meni, da je bil naveden rok primeren, glede na to, da so bile predložene informacije zgolj dopolnitev, ki je že bila razkrita v dokončni uredbi ob zaključku prvotne preiskave.
The time granted to examine and comment on this additional information was therefore considered reasonable.
Čas, odobren za preučitev dodatnih informacij in predložitev pripomb, se je zato štel kot razumen.
Some parties alleged that the Commission had stated that it did not have any new information regarding the physical characteristics other than strength class of the products used for the determination of the normal value.
Nekatere strani so trdile, da je Komisija izjavila, da ni imela nobenih novih informacij glede fizikalnih značilnosti razen trdnostnega razreda izdelkov, ki je bil uporabljen za določanje normalne vrednosti.
That claim should be rejected.
Navedeno trditev je treba zavrniti.
At that stage of the review, the Commission was merely providing additional clarification about how normal value had been established in the original investigation.
Komisija je na tej stopnji pregleda samo skušala zagotoviti dodatno pojasnilo o tem, kako se je določila normalna vrednost v prvotni preiskavi.
It is important to emphasise that ‘strength’ had been identified as one of the relevant characteristics by the Chinese exporting producers.
Pomembno je poudariti, da so kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki „trdnost“ določili kot eno od pomembnih značilnosti.
However, this did not imply that the Commission did not have any information regarding other physical characteristics.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da Komisija ni imela nobenih drugih informacij glede drugih fizikalnih značilnosti.
The same parties claimed that the Commission stated, during hearings, in regard to possible adjustments to be made for the purpose of comparison between export prices and the normal value that a preference would be given for adjusting on the basis of a price analysis rather than a cost analysis.
Iste strani so trdile, da je Komisija med zaslišanji v zvezi z morebitnimi prilagoditvami, ki bi bile izvedene za namen primerjave med izvoznimi cenami in normalno vrednostjo, navedla, da bo imelo prednost prilagajanje na podlagi analize cen in ne analize stroškov.
In fact the Commission clarified that according to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, a comparison should be made with due account taken of differences which affect price comparability and not to cost differences.
Komisija je pojasnila, da je treba v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe narediti primerjavo ob ustreznem upoštevanju razlik, ki vplivajo na primerljivost cen, in ne ob upoštevanju razlik v stroških.
Subsequently, these parties repeated their claim that adjustments should be made to take into account the differences in cost of production such as differences in efficiency of consumption of the raw material; differences in wire rod consumption; in electricity consumption, in self-generated electricity, in productivity per employee, in reasonable profit level and in differences related to tooling.
Te strani so nato znova trdile, da je treba izvesti prilagoditve ob upoštevanju razlik v stroških proizvodnje, kot so razlike v učinkovitosti potrošnje surovin, razlike v potrošnji jekla za žice, v porabi električne energije, v lastni proizvodnji električne energije, v produktivnosti na zaposlenega, v razumni stopnji dobička in v razlikah, povezanih z opremo.
As stated above, Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation is referring to price and not cost.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se člen 2(10) osnovne uredbe nanaša na ceno in ne na stroške.
There was no evidence adduced by these parties that the alleged differences in cost translated into differences in prices.
Te strani niso predložile dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo razvidno, da je zaradi domnevnih razlik v stroških prišlo do razlik v cenah.
In investigations concerning economies in transition such as China, an analogue country is used when warranted to prevent account being taken of prices and costs in non-market economy countries which are not the normal result of market forces.
V preiskavah glede gospodarstev v prehodu, kot je Kitajska, je uporabljena primerljiva država, če je to utemeljeno, da se prepreči upoštevanje cen in stroškov v državah brez tržnega gospodarstva, ki niso običajen rezultat tržnih sil.
Thus, for the purpose of establishing the normal value, a surrogate of the costs and prices of producers in functioning market economies is used.
Tako je za namen določanja normalne vrednosti uporabljen nadomestek stroškov in cen proizvajalcev iz držav z delujočim tržnim gospodarstvom.
Therefore, these claims for adjustments taking into account the differences in cost of production are rejected.
Zato so te trditve glede prilagoditev ob upoštevanju razlik v stroških proizvodnje zavrnjene.
These parties further argued that the additional information provided on 30 May 2012 regarding the characteristics of the products sold by the Indian producer was incomplete in so far as information regarding the following issues was allegedly missing: differences related to type of fastener; coating and use of chrome; diameter and length; traceability; ISO 9000; unit of defective rate; and other aspects of hardness, bending, strength, impact toughness and other friction coefficients.
Te strani so nadalje trdile, da so bile dodatne informacije, predložene 30. maja 2012 v zvezi z značilnostmi izdelkov, ki jih prodaja indijski proizvajalec, nepopolne, saj naj bi manjkale informacije o: razlikah glede vrste pritrdilnega elementa, premazu in uporabi kroma, premeru in dolžini, sledljivosti, ISO 9000, enoti stopnje napake in drugih vidikih, kot so trdota, upogibnost, udarna žilavost in drugi koeficienti trenja.
They sought clarification regarding the reasons why the remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not deemed relevant.
Zahtevali so pojasnilo glede vzrokov, zakaj se preostale značilnosti prvotne kontrolne številke izdelka niso štele kot pomembne.
These issues were explained in two information disclosure notes respectively sent on 5 July 2012 and put in the file for inspection by interested parties on 11 July 2012.
Ta vprašanja so bila pojasnjena v dveh obvestilih o razkritju informacij, ki sta bili poslani 5. julija in dani v spis 11. julija 2012, da jih zainteresirane strani lahko preučijo.
Information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
Obvestilo o razkritju informacij z dne 5. julija 2012
A table showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal values calculated by strength class for standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent customers, by the sole Indian cooperating producer.
razpredelnica, ki prikazuje razpone ravni cen za normalne vrednosti, izračunane na podlagi trdnostnega razreda, za standardne pritrdilne elemente, ki jih je en sam sodelujoči indijski proizvajalec prodal neodvisnim strankam na indijskem domačem trgu.
It was also specified that the vast majority of exports by the Chinese producers fall under strength class G.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da velika večina izvoza, ki ga opravijo kitajski proizvajalci, spada v trdnostni razred G,
An in-depth analysis of the data in India showed that standard fasteners sold on the domestic market were electroplated corresponding to the PCN Code ‘A’.
poglobljena analiza podatkov v Indiji je pokazala, da so bili standardni pritrdilni elementi, prodajani na domačem trgu, galvanizirani, kar ustreza oznaki „A“ kontrolne številke izdelka.
Therefore, the Commission proposed to compare the normal value with coating type A for exported models.
Komisija je zato za izvožene modele predlagala primerjavo normalne vrednosti s premazom vrste A,
Following a manual analysis of the Indian domestic price data, information on diameter and length were extracted from the text string of sales coding used by the Indian producer.
po ročni analizi podatkov o indijskih domačih cenah so bile iz besedilnega niza šifriranja prodaje, ki ga je uporabil indijski proizvajalec, pridobljene informacije o premeru in dolžini.
To allow for a comparison with the exports of the Chinese companies, this data was summarised into ranges to distinguish between the main product dimensions:
Da bi bila mogoča primerjava z izvozi kitajskih družb, so bili ti podatki povzeti v razpone, kar je omogočilo razlikovanje med glavnimi merami izdelka:
M4 to M10
M4 do M10
0 to 100 mm
0 do 100 mm
M12 to M20
M12 do M20
100 to 200 mm
100 do 200 mm
M22 to M30
M22 do M30
200 to 300 mm
200 do 300 mm
The Commission therefore proposed to use this data to further refine the normal value and calculate dumping margins on this basis.
Komisija je zato predlagala, da se ti podatki uporabijo za izpopolnitev normalne vrednosti in se stopnje dampinga izračunajo na tej osnovi.
Where exported fasteners did not fall into these ranges they would not be used in the dumping calculation.
Izvoženi pritrdilni elementi, ki jih ni bilo mogoče uvrstiti v te razpone, se pri izračunu dampinga niso uporabili.
This affected only a very small amount of exports.
To je veljalo le za zelo majhno količino izvoza,
The Commission provided for reference the proposed revised PCN:
Komisija je kot referenco predložila predlagano revidirano kontrolno številko izdelka:
Standard/Special
Standardni/posebni
Standard fastener
Standardni pritrdilni element
Special fastener
Posebni pritrdilni element
Strength class
Trdnostni razred
Electroplated coating
Galvaniziran premaz
101 to 200 mm
101 do 200 mm
201 to 300 mm
201 do 300 mm
The Commission provided an overview of the dumping margins modified as per the proposal listed in the information disclosure note, noting that these revised anti-dumping margins would not be automatically the anti-dumping duties, which would be subject to the lesser duty rule.
Komisija je zagotovila pregled stopenj dampinga, spremenjenih glede na predlog iz obvestila o razkritju informacij, ob upoštevanju, da te revidirane protidampinške stopnje ne bodo samodejno predstavljale protidampinških dajatev, za katere bi veljalo pravilo nižje dajatve,
Finally, new Tables 22, 23, 32, 33 and 34 of one EU producer were provided in reply to the comments made by some interested parties that the additional information provided with the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012 was incomplete, in so far as some elements in those Tables were missing or not properly summarised.
kot odgovor na pripombe nekaterih zainteresiranih strani, da so bile dodatne informacije v obvestilu o razkritju informacij z dne 30. maja 2012 nepopolne, saj so nekateri elementi v teh preglednicah manjkali ali niso bili ustrezno povzeti, so bile zagotovljene nove razpredelnice 22, 23, 32, 33 in 34 za enega od proizvajalcev v EU.
Comments to the information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
Pripombe k obvestilu o razkritju informacij z dne 5. julija 2012
Some parties requested additional information on the price level of the normal value.
Nekatere strani so zahtevale dodatne informacije o ravni cen za normalno vrednost.
As mentioned in recital 82 below, the price level could not be disclosed to interested parties as it is confidential information concerning the prices of a single analogue producer.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 82 spodaj, ravni cen zainteresiranim stranem ni bilo mogoče razkriti, saj gre za zaupne informacije glede cen enega samega primerljivega proizvajalca.
However, a non-confidential version of the normal value by strength class for standard fasteners was disclosed on 5 July 2012 to those Chinese exporting producers who requested such further information and was also placed in the file for inspection by interested parties.
Vendar nezaupna različica normalne vrednosti glede na trdnostni razred za standardne pritrdilne elemente je bila 5. julija 2012 razkrita tistim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so take dodatne informacije zahtevali, in bila poslana v spis, da jih zainteresirane strani lahko preučijo.
In this note, the Commission provided a table showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal values calculated by strength class for standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent customers, by the sole Indian cooperating producer.
V tem obvestilu je Komisija razpredelnico, ki prikazuje razpone ravni cen za normalne vrednosti, izračunane na podlagi trdnostnega razreda, za standardne pritrdilne elemente, ki jih je en sam sodelujoči indijski proizvajalec prodal neodvisnim strankam na indijskem domačem trgu.
Some parties also argued that the Commission informed them during a hearing held on 26 June 2012 that the Indian domestic sales were of two types of coating ‘A’ and ‘B’ according to the PCN table used in the original investigation.
Nekatere strani so prav tako trdile, da jih je Komisija na zaslišanju 26. junija 2012 obvestila, da je indijska domača prodaja vključevala dve vrsti premaza, „A“ in „B“ v skladu z razpredelnico s kontrolnimi številkami izdelka, ki je bila uporabljena v prvotni preiskavi.
This allegation is not founded.
Ta trditev ni utemeljena.
The Commission informed the said parties that at that stage of the review it was examining the types of coating used by the Indian producer on standard fasteners.
Komisija je te strani obvestila, da je na tisti stopnji pregleda preučevala vrste premazov, ki jih je indijski proizvajalec uporabljal na standardnih pritrdilnih elementih.
During a subsequent hearing held on 3 July 2012 and by means of an information note placed on 11 July 2012 in the file for inspection by interested parties, all parties were informed that the Indian producer was using coating ‘A’ for the production of standard fasteners.
Med naslednjim zaslišanjem 3. julija 2012 in z informativnim obvestilom, ki je bilo v spis vloženo 11. julija 2012, da ga zainteresirane strani lahko preučijo, so bile vse strani obveščene, da je indijski proizvajalec za proizvodnjo standardnih pritrdilnih elementov uporabljal premaz „A“.
During a hearing held on 11 July 2012, the same parties asked the Commission to explain how the split of the normal value between special and standard fasteners by the Indian producer had been carried out.
Med zaslišanjem 11. julija 2012 so iste strani Komisijo pozvale, naj pojasni, kako je indijski proizvajalec izvedel razdelitev normalne vrednosti med posebne in standardne pritrdilne elemente.
The Commission indicated that it had been done on the basis of the names of the customers.
Komisija je navedla, da je to bilo izvedeno na podlagi imen strank.
However, as evidenced by the minutes produced by the Hearing Officer for Trade DG, the Commission stated before the end of the hearing that it would have to clarify this issue, which it did in a further note for information of 13 July 2012 that was sent to the parties which participated in the hearing and was placed in the non-confidential file for consultation by all interested parties.
Vendar je iz zapisnika pooblaščenca za zaslišanje GD za trgovino razvidno, da je Komisija pred koncem zaslišanja navedla, da bo to vprašanje morala pojasniti, kar je tudi storila v nadaljnjem informativnem obvestilu z dne 13. julija 2012, ki je bilo poslano stranem, ki so sodelovale na zaslišanju, in ki je bilo poslano v nezaupen spis v vpogled vsem zainteresiranim stranem.
The statement made by the said parties according to which the Commission stated that ‘the split of the normal value between special and standard fasteners was carried out, inter alia, on the basis of the names of the customers’, is therefore incomplete as more information regarding this issue has been provided as mentioned in the recital below.
Trditev omenjenih strani, da je Komisija navedla, da „je bila razdelitev normalne vrednosti med posebne in standardne pritrdilne elemente med drugim izvedena na podlagi imen strank“, je tako nepopolna, saj so bile zagotovljene dodatne informacije v zvezi s tem vprašanjem, kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi spodaj.
On the difference between standard and special fasteners, the Commission’s note of 13 July 2012 explained that ‘it cannot be excluded that the automotive industry also uses standard fasteners for certain applications’.
Glede razlike med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi je bilo v obvestilu Komisije z dne 13. julija 2012 pojasnjeno, da „ni mogoče izključiti, da avtomobilska industrija prav tako uporablja standardne pritrdilne elemente za določeno uporabo“.
Some parties argued that the Commission considered that automotive fasteners could also have been regarded as standard.
Nekatere strani so trdile, da je Komisija menila, da je tudi avtomobilske pritrdilne elemente mogoče šteti kot standardne.
Such allegation is unfounded.
Taka trditev ni utemeljena.
As is clearly explained in that note, the Commission’s statement was made in the absence of a customer list from the Indian producer.
Kot je jasno pojasnjeno v omenjenem obvestilu, je Komisija svojo izjavo podala, ko ni imela na voljo seznama strank indijskega proizvajalca.
However, as established in the original investigation and further explained in Section 2.7 below, for quality and commercial reasons, automotive producers always order fasteners which are custom designed in order to comply with that industry’s ISO requirements.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v prvotni preiskavi in nadalje pojasnjeno v oddelku 2.7 spodaj, pa avtomobilski proizvajalci zaradi kakovosti in iz komercialnih razlogov vedno naročijo pritrdilne elemente, ki so zasnovani po meri, da zadostijo zahtevam ISO te industrije.
Therefore, all fasteners destined for the automotive sector that are considered as ‘special’ products by fasteners producers, including in India, according to information found on the websites of Indian automotive manufacturers.
Vsi pritrdilni elementi, namenjeni avtomobilskemu sektorju, se po mnenju proizvajalcev pritrdilnih elementov, tudi indijskih, glede na informacije na spletnih straneh indijskih proizvajalcev avtomobilov, tako štejejo kot „posebni“ izdelki.
Since the Indian producer clearly defined as ‘special fasteners’ all parts manufactured to a custom design, the Commission considers that standard fasteners destined to the automotive industry were not included in the list of standard fasteners provided during the original investigation.
Ker je indijski proizvajalec vse dele, izdelane po meri, jasno določil kot „posebne pritrdilne elemente“, Komisija meni, da standardni pritrdilni elementi, namenjeni avtomobilski industriji, niso bili vključeni na seznam standardnih pritrdilnih elementov, ki je bil predložen med prvotno preiskavo.
The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese exporting producer made similar claims as above regarding the possible inclusion of fasteners destined to the automotive sector in the normal value and, in addition, alleged that automotive fasteners which are not made according to a specific customer design still have to go through a special quality control or have to respect traceability requirements making them more expensive and should normally be considered as special fasteners.
Kitajska trgovinska zbornica in kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik sta glede morebitne vključitve pritrdilnih elementov, namenjenih avtomobilskemu sektorju v okviru normalne vrednosti, podala podobni trditvi kot zgoraj in poleg tega trdila, da morajo avtomobilski pritrdilni elementi, ki niso izdelani v skladu s posebnimi zahtevami stranke, kljub temu prestati poseben nadzor kakovosti ali upoštevati zahteve glede sledljivosti, zaradi česar so dražji in jih je treba, kot je to običajno, šteti kot posebne pritrdilne elemente.
They claimed that the Commission’s findings according to which fasteners used for high-end applications but not manufactured according to user’s drawings had nevertheless been considered as special fasteners were baseless, and thereby the Commission acted inconsistently with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation by breaching the principle of a fair comparison.
Trdila sta, da so ugotovitve Komisije, da so se pritrdilni elementi za uporabo na visoki ravni, ki pa niso izdelani v skladu z načrti uporabnika, kljub temu šteli kot posebni pritrdilni elementi, neutemeljene, s čimer Komisija ni ravnala v skladu s členom 2.10 osnovne uredbe, saj je kršila načelo poštene primerjave.
Furthermore, they considered that the Commission’s findings based on the split made by the Indian producer had not been subject to an on-spot verification visit.
Nadalje sta menila, da v zvezi z ugotovitvami Komisije na podlagi razdelitve, ki jo je izvedel indijski proizvajalec, ni bil opravljen preveritveni obisk na kraju samem.
In the light of the above, they requested the Commission to review the distinction between standard and special fasteners and if not possible, to revert to a different normal value data set.
Glede na navedeno sta od Komisije zahtevala, naj pregleda razlike med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi in, če to ni mogoče, uporabi drug podatkovni niz za normalno vrednost.
The reasoning of the Commission regarding the distinction between standard and special fasteners is already addressed in recital 47 above.
Utemeljitev Komisije glede razlike med standardnimi in posebnimi pritrdilnimi elementi je že obravnavana v uvodni izjavi 47 zgoraj.
With regard to the claim concerning the absence of verification of the split made by the Indian producer, the Commission verified the sales listing through a number of ‘walk-through’ tests (i.e. in-depth verification of a sample of sales transactions included in the sales listing in order to verify its accuracy) as per standard verification practices.
V zvezi s trditvijo, ki se nanaša na neopravljen preveritveni obisk glede razdelitve, ki jo je izvedel indijski proizvajalec, da je Komisija preverila seznam prodaje z uporabo več poenostavljenih postopkov (tj. poglobljenih preveritev vzorca prodajnih transakcij, ki so bile vključene na seznam prodaje, da se preveri njihova natančnost), v skladu s standardnimi preveritvenimi obiski.
In addition, the subsequent split of that sales listing provided by the Indian producer was checked against an average price level of the split as explained in the said note.
Poleg tega je bila preverjena nadaljnja razdelitev tega seznama prodaj, ki ga je predložil indijski proizvajalec, in sicer v primerjavi s povprečno ravnjo cen razdelitve, kot je pojasnjeno v omenjenem obvestilu.
Therefore, the allegation that the Commission took at face value the data provided by the Indian producer is not founded.
Trditev, da je Komisija podatke, ki jih je predložil indijski proizvajalec, razumela dobesedno, zato ni utemeljena.
In addition, the criteria used by the Indian producer to define special fasteners, i.e. according to customer drawing as mentioned in recital 47 above, provides sufficient assurance of the reliability of the data.
Poleg tega merila, ki jih je indijski proizvajalec uporabil za opredelitev posebnih pritrdilnih elementov, tj. v skladu z načrti strank, kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 47 zgoraj, zagotavljajo zadostno zagotovilo zanesljivosti podatkov.