natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
All these types fell within the definition of the product concerned and the like product in the notice of initiation [4] and in the provisional Regulation.
Vse te vrste so bile zajete v opredelitvi zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka v obvestilu o začetku [4] ter v začasni uredbi.
One party reiterated its claim that the so called ‘highly technical’ product types are different and not interchangeable with other types of the product concerned.
Ena stran je ponovila svojo trditev, da so tako imenovane vrste „visokotehnoloških“ izdelkov različne in niso zamenljive z drugimi vrstami zadevnega izdelka.
Hence, it argues, they should be excluded from the product definition.
Zato trdi, da bi jih bilo treba izključiti iz opredelitve izdelka.
According to the case-law, when determining whether products are alike so that they form part of the same product, it needs to be assessed whether they share the same technical and physical characteristics, have the same basic end-uses, and have the same price-quality ratio.
V skladu s sodno prakso je treba pri določanju, ali sta si izdelka podobna tako, da sta del istega izdelka, oceniti, ali imata enake tehnične in fizikalne lastnosti, enake osnovne končne uporabe in enako razmerje med ceno in kakovostjo.
In that regard, the interchangeability of, and competition between, those products should also be assessed [5].
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba tudi oceniti zamenljivost in medsebojno konkurenčnost takih izdelkov [5].
The investigation found that the ‘highly technical’ product types referred to by the party have the same basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics as the other products subject to the investigation.
V preiskavi se je ugotovilo, da imajo vrste „visokotehnoloških“ izdelkov, ki jih je navedla zadevna stran, enake osnovne fizikalne, kemične in tehnične lastnosti kot drugi izdelki, ki se preiskujejo.
They are made from stainless steel and they are wires.
Izdelani so iz nerjavnega jekla in so žice.
They constitute a semi-finished steel product (which in the majority of cases is then subject to further transformation in view of producing a broad variety of finished goods), and the production process is similar, using similar machines, such that producers can switch between different variants of the product, according to demand.
Sestavljajo jekleni polizdelek (ki se v večini primerov nato nadalje obdela, da se pridobi širok nabor končnih izdelkov), postopek proizvodnje pa je podoben, uporabljajo se podobni stroji, tako da lahko proizvajalci glede na povpraševanje prehajajo med različnimi vrstami izdelka.
Therefore, although different types of wires are not directly interchangeable and do not directly compete, producers are competing for contracts covering a broad range of stainless steel wires.
Zato se kljub temu, da različne vrste žic niso neposredno zamenljive in med seboj neposredno ne konkurirajo, proizvajalci potegujejo za pogodbe, ki bi zajele širok razpon žic iz nerjavnega jekla.
Moreover, these product types are produced and sold by both the Union industry and the Indian exporting producers using a similar production method.
Poleg tega te vrste izdelka proizvaja in prodaja tako industrija Unije kot tudi indijski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki uporabljajo podobno proizvodno metodo.
Therefore, the claim cannot be accepted.
Te trditve zato ni mogoče sprejeti.
In response to definitive disclosure one party claimed that the analysis carried out by the Commission in terms of establishing whether the so-called highly technical product types should be included in the investigation was insufficient.
V odzivu na dokončno razkritje je ena stran trdila, da analiza, ki jo je opravila Komisija, da bi ugotovila, ali bi bilo treba vrste tako imenovanega visokotehnološkega izdelka vključiti v preiskavo, ni zadostovala.
This argument is rejected.
Ta argument se zavrne.
The investigation established that the highly technical product type fall within the product definition as stated in recital 12 above.
V preiskavi se je ugotovilo, da je vrsta visokotehnološkega izdelka zajeta v opredelitvi izdelka, navedeni v uvodni izjavi 12.
The party wrongly assumes that all the criteria referred to in the case-law have to be met at the same time; this is incorrect.
Stran napačno sklepa, da je treba vsa merila, navedena v sodni praksi, izpolnjevati hkrati, a to ne drži.
According to the case-law, the Commission enjoys a wide discretion when defining the product scope [6], and has to base this assessment on the set of criteria developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
V skladu s sodno prakso je Komisiji zagotovljena široka diskrecijska pravica, kadar opredeljuje obseg izdelka [6], to oceno pa mora utemeljiti na merilih, ki jih je določilo Sodišče Evropske unije.
Often, as in the present case, some criteria may point in one direction and some in the other; in such a situation, the Commission needs to carry out a global assessment, as it has done in the present case.
Pogosto, kot tudi v tem primeru, so nekatera merila naravnana tako in druga drugače, pri čemer mora Komisija izvesti globalno oceno, kot je v sedanjem primeru tudi storila.
Therefore, this interested party erred in assuming that product types need to share all characteristics in order to fall the same product definition.
Zato je ta zainteresirana stran napačno sklepala, da so vrste izdelka lahko zajete v isto opredelitev izdelka le, če so vse njihove lastnosti enake.
Some users claimed that the so-called stainless steel wires ‘series 200’ should be excluded from the product scope.
Nekateri uporabniki so trdili, da bi bilo treba tako imenovane žice iz nerjavnega jekla „serije 200“ izključiti iz obsega izdelka.
In particular, they alleged this type was hardly produced by the Union industry.
Zlasti so trdili, da industrija Unije te vrste praktično ni proizvajala.
However, this claim is unfounded.
Vendar ta trditev ni utemeljena.
First, the fact that a certain product type is not produced by the Union industry is not a sufficient reason to exclude it from the scope of the investigation, where the production process is such that the Union producers could start producing the product type in question.
Dejstvo, da industrija Unije določene vrste izdelka ne proizvaja, še ni zadosten razlog za izključitev te vrste iz obsega preiskave, če je proizvodni proces tak, da bi proizvajalci Unije zadevno vrsto izdelka lahko začeli proizvajati.
Second, as for highly technical wires (see recital 12), it was found that these types of the product concerned have basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics identical or similar to other types of the like product produced and sold by the Union industry.
Poleg tega se je za visokotehnološke žice (glej uvodno izjavo 12) ugotovilo, da imajo te vrste zadevnega izdelka enake ali podobne osnovne fizikalne, kemične in tehnične lastnosti kot druge vrste podobnega izdelka, ki jih proizvaja in prodaja industrija Unije.
Alternatively, these users claimed that wire rod should be included in the definition of the product concerned.
Razen tega so ti uporabniki trdili, da bi bilo treba v opredelitev zadevnega izdelka vključiti jeklo za žice.
However, wire rod is the raw material used for the production of the product concerned but can also be used for the production of different products such as fasteners and nails.
Jeklo za žice je sicer surovina, ki se uporablja za proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka, vendar pa se lahko uporablja tudi za proizvodnjo različnih izdelkov, kot so pritrdilni elementi in žeblji.
Therefore, contrary to the product under investigation, it does not constitute a finished steel product.
Zato v nasprotju z izdelkom v preiskavi ni del končnega jeklenega izdelka.
Through the cold forming production process, the wire rod amongst other products can be transformed into the product concerned or a like product.
V proizvodnem procesu hladnega oblikovanja se lahko jeklo za žice med drugim preoblikuje v zadevni izdelek ali podobni izdelek.
On that basis, wire rod cannot be included in the product scope within the meaning of the basic Regulation.
Na tej podlagi jekla za žice ni mogoče vključiti v obseg izdelka v smislu osnovne uredbe.
On the basis of the above, the definition of the product concerned and the like product in recitals 21 to 24 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Glede na navedeno se opredelitvi zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka v uvodnih izjavah 21 do 24 začasne uredbe potrdita.
In recital 25 of the provisional Regulation, reference was made to the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of countervailing subsidies:
V uvodni izjavi 25 začasne uredbe so navedene naslednje sheme, ki domnevno vključujejo dodelitev subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi:
Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (‘DEPBS’);
shema za preložitev plačila uvoznih dajatev („DEPBS“);
Duty Drawback Scheme (‘DDS’);
shema za povračilo dajatev („DDS“);
Advance Authorisation Scheme (‘AAS’);
shema za vnaprejšnje odobritve („AAS“);
Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (‘EPCGS’);
shema za podporo izvozu investicijskega blaga („EPCGS“);
Export Credit Scheme (‘ECS’);
shema izvoznih kreditov („SIK“);
Focus Market Scheme (‘FMS’);
shema usmeritve v trg („FMS“);
Special Economic Zones/Export Oriented Units (‘SEZ/EOU’).
shema posebnih ekonomskih con / shema izvozno usmerjenih obratov („SEZ/EOU“).
The Commission investigated all of the national and local subsidy schemes contained in the complaint.
Obtožba je neutemeljena.
However, the Commission found that during the IP the sampled exporting producers had received subsidies only with regard to the schemes listed in recital 14 above.
Komisija je proučila vse nacionalne in lokalne sheme subvencioniranja, navedene v pritožbi, vendar je ugotovila, da so v OP vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki prejeli subvencije le v zvezi s shemami s seznama v uvodni izjavi 14.
The Union industry also argued that, since in the parallel anti-dumping investigation the data submitted by the sampled Indian producers were found unreliable and Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [7] was applied, the corresponding Article 28 of the basic Regulation should have equally been applied in the current investigation.
Industrija Unije je tudi trdila, da bi bilo treba v sedanji preiskavi enakovredno uporabiti ustrezni člen 28 osnovne uredbe, saj se je v vzporedni protidampinški preiskavi ugotovilo, da so vzorčeni indijski proizvajalci poslali nezanesljive podatke in da se je uporabil člen 18 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 [7].
However, Article 28 of the basic Regulation applies only if its conditions are met, which has not been the case with regard to the information provided by the sampled Indian producers.
Vendar se člen 28 osnovne uredbe uporablja le, če so izpolnjeni njegovi pogoji, ti pa v zvezi s predloženimi informacijami v primeru vzorčenih indijskih proizvajalcev niso bili izpolnjeni.
The investigation has shown that the DEPBS, the DDS and the AAS all form part of one subsidy mechanism, that is a duty drawback mechanism.
Preiskava je pokazala, da so DEPBS, DDS in AAS del enega mehanizma subvencioniranja, tj. mehanizma za povračilo dajatev.
India has used various types of this mechanism over a long time, modifying the individual sub-mechanisms frequently.
Indija že dolgo uporablja različne vrste tega mehanizma, pri čemer posamezne podmehanizme pogosto spreminja.
The investigation has shown that it is appropriate to analyse these sub-mechanisms together, as exporters typically have to choose between them (they are mutually exclusive), and in the event one of the sub-mechanisms is discontinued, switch to another one.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je te podmehanizme primerno analizirati skupaj, saj morajo izvozniki običajno izbirati med njimi (med seboj se izključujejo), če pa se eden od podmehanizmov ukine, morajo uporabiti drugega.
In the absence of other comments, recitals 25 to 28 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, se uvodne izjave 25 do 28 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
One of the sampled Indian exporting producers argued that the DEPBS should not be considered as a countervailing subsidy, since the purpose of the scheme is to offset customs duties on imports.
Eden od vzorčenih indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je trdil, da se DEPBS ne bi smela obravnavati kot subvencija, proti kateri se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, ker je namen te sheme izravnati carine na uvoz.
It was furthermore alleged that for the product under investigation, there is no domestic production of inputs, so that it is a reasonable assumption that all imports have been taxed at 5 %, and that the cap established by the Government of India (‘GOI’) ensures that there is no over-compensation.
Nadalje se je trdilo, da za izdelek v preiskavi ni domače proizvodnje surovin, tako da je mogoče upravičeno predpostavljati, da je bil celoten uvoz obdavčen po 5-odstotni stopnji in da najvišja dovoljena vrednost, ki jo je določila indijska vlada, preprečuje previsoka nadomestila.
As explained in recital 38 of the provisional Regulation, this scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I, Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 38 začasne uredbe, ta shema ne more veljati za dovoljen sistem povračila dajatev ali nadomestni sistem povračil v smislu člena 3(1)(a)(ii) osnovne uredbe, saj ne izpolnjuje pravil iz točke (i) Priloge I, Priloge II (opredelitev in pravila za povračila) in Priloge III (opredelitev in pravila za nadomestna povračila) k osnovni uredbi.
In particular, an exporter benefiting from DEPBS is under no obligation actually to consume the goods imported free of duty in its production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to the actual value of the inputs used.
Zlasti izvoznik, ki je upravičen do DEPBS, nikakor ni zavezan dejansko porabiti blaga, uvoženega brez dajatev, v proizvodnem postopku, znesek kredita pa ni izračunan glede na dejansko vrednost uporabljenih surovin.
The GOI has failed to establish a system which links the amount of duty exempted on the imported inputs with their consumption in the exported products.
Indijska vlada ni vzpostavila sistema, ki bi povezoval oprostitev zneska dajatve na uvožene surovine z njihovo potrošnjo v izvoznih izdelkih.
From their side, the companies benefitting from this scheme also did not have a mechanism in place to demonstrate that they did not receive any excess remission.
Družbe, ki jim navedena shema prinaša ugodnosti, na svoji strani tudi niso imele vzpostavljenega mehanizma, s katerim bi pokazale, da niso prejele nobene presežne oprostitve.
In addition, regarding the non-existing of over-compensation in this specific case, the company failed to demonstrate that this was the case, it could for example have benefitted from compensation for other imported goods or it could have benefitted from compensation for imported inputs without having consumed it for the production of the product concerned.
Poleg tega družba ni mogla dokazati, da prav v tem primeru previsoko nadomestilo ni obstajalo, saj bi lahko na primer imela ugodnosti iz nadomestila za drugo uvoženo blago ali iz nadomestila za uvožene surovine, ne da bi jih uporabila za proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
It also has to be noted that the statement that there is no domestic production of inputs is incorrect since at least one of the companies investigated produced this domestically while the other two investigated companies were purchasing from a domestic producer, and not from a domestic importing trader.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da je izjava, da domače proizvodnje surovin ni, neresnična, saj je najmanj ena od preiskovanih družb zadevne surovine proizvajala doma, medtem ko sta drugi dve preiskovani družbi kupovali od domačega proizvajalca in ne od domačega trgovca uvoznika.
Therefore, these arguments cannot be accepted.
Zato teh argumentov ni mogoče sprejeti.
One party argued that in case of the sale of the DEPBS licence, the actual selling price was below the licence value and therefore the countervailing benefit was lower than the one provisionally established.
Ena stran je trdila, da je bila v primeru prodaje dovoljenja DEPBS dejanska prodajna cena nižja od vrednosti dovoljenja, in je bila zato ugodnost, proti kateri se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, manjša od začasno določene.
However, the benefit under this scheme was calculated on the basis of the amount of credit granted in the licence regardless of whether the licence was used to offset customs duties on imports or whether the licence was actually sold.
Vendar je bila ugodnost v okviru te sheme izračunana na podlagi zneska kredita, odobrenega z dovoljenjem, ne glede na to, ali je bilo dovoljenje uporabljeno za izravnavo carin na uvoz ali je bilo prodano.
Any sale of a licence at a price less than its face value is a purely commercial decision which does not alter the amount of benefit received under this scheme.
Vsaka prodaja dovoljenja po ceni, nižji od nominalne vrednosti, je izključno tržna odločitev, ki ne spremeni zneska ugodnosti, prejetega v okviru te sheme.
Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.
Zato tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
The GOI argued that the DEPBS has been withdrawn during the IP and therefore should not be countervailed.
Indijska vlada je trdila, da je bila DEPBS ukinjena v OP in se zato ne bi smela izravnavati.
They furthermore argued that since the duty drawback is not a successor programme of DEPB, DEPB may not be countervailed.
Nadalje je trdila, da se DEPB ne sme izravnavati, saj povračilo dajatve ni program, ki bi nasledil DEPB.
Indeed the DEPBS ceased to exist on 30 September 2011, during the IP.
DEPBS je dejansko prenehala obstajati 30. septembra 2011, tj. v OP.
However, the subsidisation continued to exist.
Vendar je subvencioniranje obstajalo še naprej.
As an alternative to the DEPBS the exporters were found to receive benefits under AAS and especially DDS.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da namesto iz DEPBS izvozniki prejemajo ugodnosti iz AAS in zlasti DDS.
As described in recitals 42 to 44 of the provisional Regulation, AAS and DDS were adjusted to organise a smooth transition from the DEPBS.
Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 42 do 44 začasne uredbe, sta bili AAS in DDS prilagojeni tako, da se je omogočil nemoten prehod z DEPBS.
In addition, the nature of the benefits under the three schemes, i.e. revenue foregone in the form of exemption from customs duties, is exactly the same.
Poleg tega je narava ugodnosti iz navedenih treh shem, in sicer izpadli dohodki v obliki oprostitev carinskih dajatev, popolnoma enaka.
Companies have thus a choice which scheme to use for the offsetting of customs duties.
Družbe lahko torej izbirajo, katero shemo bodo uporabile za kompenzacijo carinskih dajatev.
Therefore, despite the fact that the DEPBS ceased to exist halfway through the IP, the subsidies granted by the GOI during the IP should be countervailed because the overarching system of benefits continued as, for the reasons set out above in recital 20, all duty drawback schemes form one subsidy mechanisms with different, often changing sub-mechanisms.
Zato je treba subvencije, ki jih je v OP dodelila indijska vlada, kljub odpravi DEPBS na polovici OP, izravnati, ker se je splošni sistem ugodnosti nadaljeval, saj so iz razlogov v uvodni izjavi 20 vse sheme povračila dajatev del mehanizmov ene subvencije z različnimi, pogosto spremenljivimi podmehanizmi.
This argument can thus not be accepted.
Tega argumenta torej ni mogoče sprejeti.
In its response to the definitive disclosure, the GOI reiterated its arguments concerning the withdrawal of the DEPBS after definitive disclosure.
Po dokončnem razkritju je indijska vlada v odzivu na dokončno razkritje ponovila svoj argument glede ukinitve DEPBS.
However, since no new arguments were presented which would lead to a change in the conclusion with regard to the replacement of the subsidisation under the ceased DEPBS by the adjusted DDS, this argument cannot be accepted.
Vendar ga ni mogoče sprejeti, saj ni bilo predloženih nobenih novih argumentov, ki bi vplivali na spremembo sklepa, da se je subvencioniranje iz ukinjene DEPBS nadomestilo s prilagojeno DDS.
In the absence of other comments, recitals 29 to 47 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, se uvodne izjave 29 do 47 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In addition, it was found that the Indian exporting producer KEI was using the DEPBS in the IP.
Nadalje je bilo ugotovljeno, da je indijski proizvajalec izvoznik KEI v OP uporabljal DEPBS.
The subsidy rate amounted to 0,50 %.
Stopnja subvencije je znašala 0,50 %.
Duty Drawback Scheme (‘DDS’)
Shema za povračilo dajatev („DDS“)
The GOI argued that the DDS should not be considered as a countervailing subsidy, since the purpose of the scheme is to offset import duties and excises taxes paid on inputs.
Indijska vlada je trdila, da se DDS ne bi smela šteti za izravnalno subvencijo, saj je namen te sheme kompenzirati uvozne dajatve in davke na trošarine, plačane za surovine.
As explained in recitals 58 to 60 of the provisional Regulation this scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation since it does not conform to the rules laid down in point (i) of Annex I, Annex II and Annex III of the basic Regulation.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 58 do 60 začasne uredbe, se ta shema ne more šteti za dovoljen sistem povračila dajatev ali nadomestni sistem povračil v smislu člena 3(1)(a)(ii) osnovne uredbe, saj ne izpolnjuje pravil iz točke (i) Priloge I, Priloge II in Priloge III k osnovni uredbi.
In particular, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of point (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation.
Zlasti ne obstaja nikakršen sistem ali postopek, ki bi potrdil, katere surovine so porabljene v proizvodnem procesu izvoznega izdelka oziroma ali je prišlo do presežnega plačila uvoznih dajatev v smislu točke (i) Priloge I ter prilog II in III k osnovni uredbi.
Furthermore, an exporter is eligible for the DDS benefits regardless of whether it imports any input materials at all.
Izvoznik je tudi upravičen do ugodnosti v okviru DDS ne glede na to, ali sploh uvaža surovine.
To obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter simply to export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported.
Za pridobitev subvencije zadošča, da izvoznik zgolj izvaža blago, ne da bi dokazal, da so bile uvožene kakršne koli surovine.
The above was confirmed by the findings made at the visited companies and by the corresponding legislation, namely the GOI’s circular No 24/2001 as explained in recital 60 of the provisional Regulation.
To so potrdile ugotovitve v obiskanih družbah in ustrezna zakonodaja, tj. okrožnica indijske vlade št. 24/2001, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 60 začasne uredbe.
In addition, in its submission, the GOI admitted itself in paragraph 32 thereof that DDS may result in excess remission.
Poleg tega je indijska vlada v svoji predložitvi v odstavku 32 priznala, da DDS lahko povzroči presežno oprostitev.
Therefore, the GOI’s argument cannot be accepted.
Zato argumenta indijske vlade ni mogoče sprejeti.
The GOI further argued that, although the verification system for the consumption of inputs was not complete, in particular due to the high number of beneficiaries and the administrative burden involved in controlling all of them, the verification mechanism in place based on sampling should be accepted.
Indijska vlada je nadalje trdila, da čeprav sistem preverjanja za potrošnjo surovin ni bil popoln, zlasti glede na veliko število upravičencev in upravno breme v zvezi z njihovim nadzorovanjem, bi bilo treba vzpostavljeni mehanizem preverjanja na podlagi vzorčenja sprejeti.