natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission does not consider export prices based on a price undertaking a meaningful indicator in the analysis of future behaviour of exporting producers in the absence of measures and any price undertaking.
V celotnem OPP je bil Acron edini ruski proizvajalec izvoznik, ki mu je cenovna zaveza koristila, saj so za vse druge ruske proizvajalce izvoznike veljale dajatve.
Contrary to what was argued by Acron, its export prices to the EU cannot be considered to be only the result of normal market conditions.
Ti elementi so zagotovo vplivali na konkurenčni položaj družbe Acron kot edinega ruskega dobavitelja za trg EU.
During the full RIP, Acron was the only Russian exporting producer which benefited from a price undertaking, all other Russian exporting producers were subject to the duties.
Verjetnost ponovitve dampinga
These elements definitely affected the competitive position of Acron as the sole Russian supplier of the EU market.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju premislekov iz uvodnih izjav 52 do 55 analizirala, ali obstajajo dokazi o verjetnosti ponovitve dampinga, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati.
Likelihood of recurrence of dumping
Analizirala je naslednje dejavnike:
In light of the considerations set out in recitals 52 to 55, the Commission analysed whether there was evidence of likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the measures lapse.
izvozno ceno iz Rusije v druge namembne kraje, proizvodne in neizkoriščene zmogljivosti v Rusiji kot celoti ter privlačnost trga Unije in drugih trgov tretjih držav.
It analysed the following factors:
Izvoz iz Rusije v druge namembne kraje
the export price from Russia to other destinations, the production capacity and spare capacity in Russia as a whole and the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je bilo tehtano povprečje izvoznih cen franko tovarna družbe Acron za trge tretjih držav, kot so Brazilija, Kolumbija in Peru, v OPP nižje od dejanske povprečne domače cene franko tovarna, ki se je plačevala ali se plačuje v OPP.
Exports from Russia to other destinations
Družba Acron je torej prodajala po dampinških cenah na trge tretjih držav, zlasti Brazilije, ki je bila daleč največji izvozni trg med tretjimi državami.
The Commission established that Acron's weighted average ex-works export price to third countries markets such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru during the RIP was lower than the actual average domestic ex-works price paid or payable during the RIP.
Za tri preostale vzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike je Komisija prav tako ugotovila, da je bilo njihovo tehtano povprečje prodajnih cen franko tovarna za tretje države, kot so Brazilija, Peru, Kolumbija, Ukrajina in Kazahstan, pri vsaki od treh navedenih družb nižje od povprečnih domačih cen franko tovarna, ki so se plačevale ali se plačujejo v OPP, kar pomeni, da so prodajale po dampinških cenah.
Acron therefore sold at dumped prices to third country markets, in particular to Brazil, by far the main third country export market.
Ta ugotovitev je temeljila na preverjenih podatkih, ki so jih predložili ruski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predstavljali približno 80 % izvoza v tretje države.
For the three other sampled exporting producers the Commission also established that their weighted average ex-works sales prices to third countries such as Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were for each of the three, lower than their average domestic ex-works prices paid or payable during the RIP and were thus also sold at dumped prices.
Zato Komisiji ni bilo treba uporabiti ruske statistike o izvozu, kot je predlagalo združenje RFPA.
This finding was based on verified data provided by Russian exporting producers, which accounted for around 80 % of the exports to third countries.
Izvoz vseh štirih vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v tretje države je v OPP potekal po cenah na trajnostni ravni.
Accordingly, there was no need for the Commission to resort to Russian export statistics, as the RFPA suggested.
Združenje RFPA je trdilo, da podatki iz dokumenta o razkritju kažejo, da v primeru družbe EuroChem dampinga ni oziroma je v skrajnem primeru damping de minimis.
The export sales of all four sampled exporting producers to third countries were made at a sustainable price level during the RIP.
Ta utemeljitev je napačna.
RFPA argued that data available in the disclosure document suggests that, as far as Eurochem is concerned, there is no dumping or, at best, de minimis dumping.
Namen analize ni izračunati točne stopnje dampinga družbe EuroChem, temveč ugotoviti, ali obstaja verjetnost ponovitve dampinga iz Rusije, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati.
The argument is misplaced.
V tem smislu je preiskava pokazala, da so bile povprečne cene franko tovarna za tretje države, tudi družbe EuroChem, nižje od njihovih povprečnih domačih cen franko tovarna, kar pomeni, da je prodaja potekala po dampinških cenah.
The purpose of the analysis is not to calculate the exact dumping margin of Eurochem but to determine whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of dumping from Russia should measures be allowed to lapse.
Politika oblikovanja cen družbe EuroChem za prodajo na trge tretjih držav (prodaja za izvoz po cenah, nižjih od domačih cen) je eden pomembnih dejavnikov, na podlagi katerega se je ugotovilo, da bi se damping v EU verjetno ponovil, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati.
In that context, the investigation revealed that, also for Eurochem, average ex-works prices to third countries were lower than their average domestic ex-works prices and were thus sold at dumped prices.
Združenje RFPA je trdilo, da za izračun dampinga niso bile uporabljene ustrezne metodologije.
The pricing policy of Eurochem for sales to third countries (selling for export below domestic prices) is one relevant factor relied upon the overall determination that dumping to the EU would be likely to recur if measures were allowed to lapse.
Kot je bilo že razloženo, Komisija ni izračunala stopenj dampinga, temveč je preprosto primerjala povprečne domače cene franko tovarna z izvoznimi cenami franko tovarna na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih predložile vzorčene družbe.
RFPA argued that no appropriate methodologies were used in the dumping calculations.
Pri analizi verjetnosti ponovitve dampinga ni treba izračunati točnih stopenj dampinga, zato ni bilo razloga, da bi se v skladu s predlogom združenja RFPA uporabile vrednosti CIF.
As explained, the Commission did not calculate dumping margins but simply compared average ex-works domestic prices with ex-works export prices based on data reported by the sampled companies.
Združenje RFPA je trdilo, da Komisija ni primerjala cen glede na posamezno vrsto izdelkov ter da ni opravila prilagoditve glede na stopnjo trgovine.
In a likelihood of recurrence of dumping analysis there is no need to calculate precise dumping margins, so there was no reason to use CIF values, as suggested by RFPA.
Komisija je analizirala trditev in ugotovila podobno razliko med cenami tudi pri primerjavi glede na posamezno vrsto izdelka.
RFPA argued that the Commission did not compare prices on a product-by-product type basis and that no level-of-trade adjustment was made.
Prilagoditev glede na stopnjo trgovine v vsakem primeru ni bilo mogoče opraviti, saj so vzorčene družbe, razen družbe Acron, sodelovale le deloma in niso predložile dovolj podrobnih podatkov, zlasti podrobnih podatkov na podlagi seznamov posamično navedenih transakcij.
The Commission analysed the claim and found a similar price difference even if the comparison would have been made on a product-by-product level.
Zato se ta trditev ovrže.
The level of trade adjustments could in any event not be made, as the sampled companies, except Acron, only partially cooperated and did not provide sufficiently detailed data, in particular detailed transaction-by-transaction listings.
Pri ugotavljanju, kako bodo preostali trije vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki ravnali v prihodnosti, ni bilo mogoče uporabiti izvoza v Unijo v OPP, in sicer iz naslednjih razlogov.
Therefore this argument is rejected.
V OPP je družba EuroChem tako kot Acron izvažala le v okviru cenovne zaveze.
Export sales to the Union during the RIP could not be used for the determining the future behaviour of the three other sampled exporting producers for the following reasons.
Družba EuroChem je v Unijo prodajala le v obdobju, ko je veljala zaveza, po 11. oktobru 2012, ko je Komisija s Sklepom 2012/629/EU umaknila zavezo, pa ni prodajala v Unijo.
During the RIP, EuroChem, like Acron, only exported under the price undertaking.
Družbi SBU Azot in UralChem v OPP zadevnega izdelka nista prodajali v Unijo.
EuroChem had sales to the Union only during the period it had an undertaking in force, while it had no sales after the undertaking was withdrawn on 11 October 2012 by the Commission by means of Decision 2012/629/EU.
Komisija ni menila, da je treba ugotoviti, ali je bila domača prodaja del običajnega poteka trgovine.
As far as SBU Azot and UralChem are concerned, they did not sell the product concerned to the Union during the RIP.
Dejanske domače cene resnično že kažejo, da je izvoz na trge tretjih držav dampinški.
The Commission did not consider it necessary to determine whether the domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade.
Zato bi proučitev dobičkonosnosti domačih prodaj, zaradi katere bi bilo treba normalno vrednost konstruirati (na podlagi stroškov in razumnega dobička), če bi taka prodaja povzročala izgubo, le zvišala normalno vrednost in tako stopnjo dampinga, ki je bila ugotovljena za izvoz na trge tretjih držav.
Indeed the actual domestic prices already show that export sales to third country markets are dumped.
V okviru pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa in analize verjetnosti ponovitve dampinga zadostuje ugotovitev, da bi se damping verjetno ponovil, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati.
Therefore, an examination of the profitability of domestic sales, with the potential consequence that the normal value would need to be constructed (on the basis of costs and reasonable profit) if such sales were found to be loss-making, could only have led to an increase of the normal value and hence of the dumping margin found for export sales to third country markets.
Posledično je Komisija menila, da ni treba analizirati dobičkonosnosti domače prodaje, in zato ni ocenila zanesljivosti proizvodnih stroškov v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
In the context of an expiry review and the analysis of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, it is sufficient to establish that dumping is likely to recur should measures lapse.
Ob upoštevanju teh premislekov je Komisija sklenila, da ruski proizvajalci izvozniki zadevni izdelek trenutno prodajajo po dampinških cenah tretjim državam v Latinski Ameriki, Vzhodni Evropi, Afriki in Aziji.
As a consequence, the Commission saw no need to analyse the profitability of domestic sales and, accordingly, it did not assess the reliability of the costs of production in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
V OPP je povprečna izvozna cena franko tovarna štirih vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov za tretje države znašala 201 EUR/tono, povprečna domača cena franko tovarna pa je znašala 221 EUR/tono.
In view of these considerations, the Commission concludes that the Russian exporting producers currently sell the product concerned at dumped prices to third countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.
Zato Komisija meni, da obstaja verjetnost, da bi ruski proizvajalci izvozniki prav tako prodajali v Unijo po dampinških cenah, če bi se trenutni ukrepi razveljavili.
During the RIP the average ex-works export price of the four sampled exporting producers was 201 EUR/tonne to third countries, while the average ex-works domestic price was 221 EUR/tonne.
Združenje RFPA je trdilo, da primerjava ruskih domačih cen z ruskimi izvoznimi cenami za tretje države ni smiselna.
Therefore, the Commission considers that it is likely that, if the current measures were to be repealed, the Russian exporting producers would also sell to the Union at dumped levels.
Vendar Komisija v zvezi s tem meni, da so te cene pomemben kazalnik pri ocenjevanju, kako se bo izvoz v Unijo v prihodnosti najverjetneje razvijal, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati, saj za ruski izvoz v večino tretjih držav ne veljajo protidampinške dajatve.
RFPA claimed that a comparison of Russian domestic prices with Russian export prices to third countries is meaningless.
Izvozne cene za tretje države so pomemben element pri tem skupnem ocenjevanju, zlasti ker ni dovolj zanesljivih podatkov o ruskem izvozu v Unijo v OPP, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 52.
The Commission however, considers in this respect that these prices are an important indicator in the assessment as to how future exports to the Union are likely to develop in case measures lapse, as Russian exports to most third countries are not subject to anti-dumping duties.
Ruska vlada in družba Acron sta v zvezi s tem trdili, da je nadaljevanje ukrepov nezakonito že zaradi dejstva, da so bili ti ukrepi uvedeni z Uredbo (ES) št. 661/2008, na podlagi uporabe domnevno nezakonite metodologije za prilagoditev cene plina pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti.
In particular in the absence of reliable data about Russian exports to the Union during the RIP, as explained in recital 52, export prices to third countries are an important element in this overall assessment.
Kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 63, Komisija pri tej preiskavi ni menila, da je treba ugotoviti, ali je bila domača prodaja del običajnega poteka trgovanja, zaradi česar bi bilo treba normalno vrednost konstruirati.
The Russian government and Acron argued in this respect that the continuation of measures is already illegal based on the fact that such measures were imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008, in the first place using the alleged illegal gas adjustment methodology in constructing the normal value.
Kot je družba Acron pravilno opozorila v svoji predložitvi po razkritju, to ne izključuje konstruiranja normalne vrednosti, vključno s potrebnimi prilagoditvami, ki se bodo po potrebi opravile v prihodnjih preiskavah.
As set out in recital 63, in this investigation the Commission did not consider it necessary to determine whether the domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade with the potential consequence that the normal value would have to be constructed.
Neizkoriščene zmogljivosti
As Acron correctly pointed out in its submission after disclosure, this does not preclude the construction of the normal value, including necessary adjustments, where appropriate in any future investigations.
Komisija je neizkoriščeno zmogljivost znanih ruskih proizvajalcev določila na naslednji način.
Spare capacities
Podatki o neizkoriščeni zmogljivosti štirih vzorčenih družb so temeljili na izpolnjenih vprašalnikih, ki so bili po potrebi popravljeni po preveritvenih obiskih.
The Commission established the spare capacity of the known Russian producers on the following basis.
Pri obratih, ki proizvajajo tako amonijev nitrat, ki se uporablja kot gnojilo, kot amonijev nitrat, ki se uporablja za industrijske namene (kot na primer za proizvodnjo eksploziv), t. i. „amonijev nitrat z nizko gostoto“, ki je prav tako zadevni izdelek, kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 46, se je upoštevala njihova celotna neizkoriščena zmogljivost.
The data on spare capacity for the four sampled companies were based on their questionnaire replies, corrected where necessary following the verification visits.
Enako se je upoštevala tudi neizkoriščena zmogljivost obratov, ki proizvajajo le amonijev nitrat, ki se uporablja za industrijske namene.
For plants which produce both ammonium nitrate used as a fertiliser and ammonium nitrate used for industrial purposes (such as the production of explosives), the so-called low-density ammonium nitrate, which is also the product concerned as set out in recital 46, their total spare capacity was taken into account.
Poleg tega je bila v izračun neizkoriščene zmogljivosti vključena tudi celotna neizkoriščena zmogljivost družbe Kirovo, saj se neizkoriščena zmogljivost za druge vrste amonijevega nitrata, ki je trenutno izvzet iz uporabe protidampinških ukrepov [16], zlahka lahko uporablja za proizvodnjo amonijevega nitrata, trenutno uvrščenega pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
In the same vein, the spare capacity of plants which produce only ammonium nitrate used for industrial purposes was also taken into account.
Od preostalih petih ruskih proizvajalcev je ena družba Komisiji predložila svoj odgovor o svoji neizkoriščeni zmogljivosti.
In addition, the total spare capacity of Kirovo was included in the spare capacity calculation as the spare capacity of other types of ammonium nitrate currently excluded from the application of the anti-dumping measures [16] can very easily be used for producing ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090.
Za ostale je podatke predložilo združenje RFPA.
Of the remaining five Russian producers one company provided the Commission with an individual reply on its spare capacity.
Če so bili dejanski podatki o proizvodnji, ki so jih predložili nevzorčeni ruski proizvajalci, višji od poročane zmogljivosti, je bila osnova za ugotavljanje dejanske zmogljivosti dejanska proizvodnja.
For the rest the data was provided by RFPA.
V teh primerih se je poročana zmogljivost nanašala na nazivne zmogljivosti (to je zasnovana zmogljivost obrata), ki niso bile popravljene po nadgradnji obratov, s katero se je njihova zmogljivost povečala.
Where the actual production figures submitted by the non-sampled Russian producers were higher than the reported capacity, the actual production was taken as a basis to determine the actual capacity.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija ugotovila, da je celotna zmogljivost ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v OPP znašala 9592000 ton, njihova dejanska proizvodnja (vključno z amonijevim nitratom, ki se uporablja za industrijske namene, in drugimi vrstami amonijevega nitrata, ki so trenutno izvzete iz uporabe protidampinških ukrepov [17]) pa je znašala 8519105 ton.
In those cases, the reported capacity concerned name plate capacities (that is the designed capacity of the plants) which have not been corrected after the plants have had an update which resulted in an increase of their capacity.
Neizkoriščena zmogljivost proizvajalcev izvoznikov je v OPP posledično znašala 1,07 milijona ton, to pa je v nasprotju s trditvami RFPA, da je bila vgrajena zmogljivost proizvajalcev izvoznikov v celoti izkoriščena.
On that basis, the Commission established that during the RIP the Russian exporting producers had a total of 9592000 tonnes capacity, while their actual production (including ammonium nitrate used for industrial purposes and other types of ammonium nitrate currently excluded from the application of the anti-dumping measures [17]) was 8519105 tonnes.
Ta količina ustreza 16,9 % potrošnje Unije (glede na ugotovljenih 6,35 milijona ton potrošnje v OPP, glej oddelek 5.1 v nadaljevanju).
Consequently and contrary to the allegations from RFPA that the exporting producers' installed capacity is fully utilised, during the RIP the exporting producers had 1,07 million tonnes spare capacity.
Vendar je Komisija v okviru analize prihodnjih razmer ugotovila tudi, da bi se zmogljivost po OPP dodatno povečala za približno 472000 ton, saj bi nekateri vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki vgradili nove zmogljivosti.
The latter quantity corresponds to 16,9 % of the Union consumption (based on the established 6,35 million tonnes consumption during the RIP, see Section 5.1 below).
Celotna neizkoriščena zmogljivost tako znaša 24,3 % potrošnje Unije.
However, the Commission also established in the context of its prospective analysis that after the RIP the capacity would further increase by approximately 472000 tonnes due to the installation of new capacities by some of the sampled exporting producers.
Po razkritju je združenje RFPA trdilo, da neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti ni oziroma da bi Komisija morala vsaj analizirati dejstvo, da neizkoriščenih nazivnih zmogljivosti ni.
The total spare capacity thus amounts to 24,3 % of the Union consumption.
Poleg tega se združenje RFPA ni strinjalo s tem, da so bile nove zmogljivosti po OPP okrepljene.
After disclosure, RFPA maintained that no spare capacities exist or at the very least that the Commission should analyse the fact that no spare nameplate capacities exist.
Združenje RFPA in ruski proizvajalci izvozniki so poročali o svoji vgrajeni zmogljivosti na podlagi nazivne teoretične zmogljivosti, ki v nekaterih primerih ni upoštevala nedavnih nadgradenj.
Also, RFPA disagreed that new capacities were build up after the RIP.
To je Komisija ugotovila po preveritvenih obiskih, kar je tudi upoštevala.
RFPA and the Russian exporting producers reported their installed capacity based on the nameplate theoretical capacity, which in some cases did not take into account recent upgrades.
Kot je združenje RFPA pravilno trdilo v svoji predložitvi po razkritju, je bila poročana nazivna zmogljivost nevzorčenih ruskih proizvajalcev sprejeta za tiste nevzorčene ruske proizvajalce, ki so proizvedli manj od poročane zmogljivosti.
This was clear to the Commission following the verification visits and taken into account.
Če so bili podatki o dejanski proizvodnji, ki so jih predložili preostali nevzorčeni proizvajalci, višji od poročane zmogljivosti, je bila osnova za ugotavljanje dejanske zmogljivosti dejanska proizvodnja.
As correctly stated by RFPA in its submission after disclosure, for non-sampled Russian producers the reported nameplate capacity was accepted for those non-sampled Russian producers who produced less than the reported capacity.
Za tri nevzorčene proizvajalce, ki niso predložili podatkov o zmogljivosti in proizvodnji, so se uporabili podatki RFPA.
For other non-sampled producers, where the reported actual production figures were higher than the reported capacity, the actual production was taken as a basis to determine the real capacity.
Komisija meni, da je to jasen in celovit pristop za ugotavljanje celotne proizvodne zmogljivosti ruskih proizvajalcev zadevnega izdelka.
For three non-sampled producers, which did not submit any data on capacity and production, the data provided by RFPA were used.
V nasprotju s trditvami se je ista metodologija uporabila za vse proizvajalce.
The Commission considers this a clear and coherent approach when establishing the total production capacity of Russian producers of the product concerned.
Če je bila dejanska proizvodnja višja od poročane nazivne zmogljivosti, na primer zaradi nadgradnje proizvodnih obratov, Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj se taka dodatna zmogljivost dejansko ne bi upoštevala, če podatki o nazivni zmogljivosti očitno niso točni.
Contrary to what was alleged, the same methodology was applied to all producers.
Trditev, da taka metodologija ni običajna na trgu, ni razlog, da se zanemarijo podatki o dejanski proizvodnji.
If the actual production was higher than the reported name plate capacity, for example due to an update of production facilities, the Commission sees no reason why such additional capacity cannot factually be taken into account given that it is obvious that the nameplate capacity is not accurate.
Prav tako način, na katerega se izračuna zmogljivost industrije Unije, na kar je opozorilo združenje RFPA, ni relevanten za ugotavljanje celotne proizvodne zmogljivosti ruskih proizvajalcev.
The argument that such methodology is not common in the market, as alleged, is not considered a reason to neglect the actual production data.
V nasprotju s trditvami RFPA neraba poročanih nazivnih zmogljivosti v nekaterih primerih in njihova nadomestitev z dejanskimi, večinoma preverjenimi podatki o proizvodnji ne pomeni, da je Komisija uporabila koncept najboljših dostopnih dejstev v smislu člena 18 osnovne uredbe.