natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The GOC further claimed that what is the ‘reasonable period’ under Article 12.7 of the ASCM would also constitute ‘ample opportunity’ under Article 12.1 of the ASCM for all other questionnaire-type documents.
Kitajska vlada je prav tako trdila, da bi se „razumno obdobje“ v skladu s členom 12.7 Sporazuma SIU štelo za „zadostno možnost“ v skladu s členom 12.1 Sporazuma SIU tudi za vse ostale dokumente, ki vsebujejo vprašalnik.
The GOC also claimed that it could only reach out to the sampled exporting producers once the sample was finalised and therefore the time granted for the response between the receipt of the questionnaire and sampling decision was meaningless.
Poleg tega je kitajska vlada trdila, da bi lahko z vzorčenimi proizvajalci izvozniki začela sodelovati šele, ko bi bil vzorec dokončno oblikovan, zato je bil rok, odobren za odziv med prejetjem vprašalnika in sklepom o vzorčenju, nesmiseln.
The GOC claimed that the Commission's ‘desire’ to complete the investigation quickly seems to trump the ‘non-negotiable requirement’ to accord an ample opportunity under Article 12.1.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da naj bi „želja“ Komisije po hitrem zaključku preiskave izpodrinila „zahtevo, o kateri se ni mogoče pogajati“, da bi odobrila zadostno možnost v skladu s členom 12.1.
The Commission does not agree with these claims as it did its utmost to grant the maximum possible time to the GOC to submit replies to the questionnaire and deficiency letter.
Komisija se s temi trditvami ne strinja, saj se je po svojih najboljših močeh trudila, da bi kitajski vladi odobrila čim daljši rok za predložitev izpolnjenih vprašalnikov in odgovora na poziv k dopolnitvi.
The GOC was also advised that it would be possible to submit requested documents up to the date of the verification visit.
Kitajska vlada je bila prav tako obveščena, da bi lahko zahtevane dokumente predložila do dneva preveritvenega obiska.
The Commission did not preclude the GOC from submitting any information throughout the proceeding and on a number of occasions reminded the GOC of the possibility to request hearings where the information and views of the GOC could be presented.
Komisija ni preprečevala kitajski vladi, da med postopkom predloži kakršne koli informacije, in jo je večkrat opomnila na možnost, da zahteva zaslišanje, na katerem bi lahko predstavila informacije in stališča.
It is noted that no information submitted by the GOC throughout the proceeding was rejected for the reason of timing.
Poudariti je treba, da nobene informacije, ki jih je med postopkom predložila kitajska vlada, niso bile zavrnjene zaradi neupoštevanja roka.
The claim of the GOC that the time granted for the response between the receipt of the questionnaire and the sampling decision was useless is not correct.
Trditev kitajske vlade, da je bil rok, odobren za odziv med prejetjem vprašalnika in sklepom o vzorčenju, neustrezen, ne drži.
A major part of the questionnaire concerned the overall level of subsidisation of the industry/product concerned and the GOC was not in any way limited by the sampling decision to collect information of general nature.
Velik del vprašalnika je zadeval splošno raven subvencioniranja industrije/zadevnega izdelka, pri čemer sklep o vzorčenju na noben način ni omejeval kitajske vlade pri zbiranju splošnih informacij.
More importantly, following the selection of the sample the GOC had still 43 days to collect information specific to the sampled exporting producers.
Še pomembneje je, da je imela kitajska vlada po izboru vzorca še vedno na voljo 43 dni, da zbere informacije, specifične za vzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike.
The Commission acted in accordance with Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement and granted to the GOC ample opportunity to present all evidence which it considered relevant, bearing in mind that such an obligation cannot be open-ended, in order to ensure timely completion of the investigation.
Komisija je ravnala v skladu s členom 12.1 Sporazuma SIU in je kitajski vladi dala zadostno možnost, da predstavi vse dokaze, ki jih šteje za ustrezne, ob upoštevanju, da za zagotovitev pravočasne izvedbe preiskave taka obveznost ne more biti časovno neomejena.
The GOC also claimed that the Commission initially requested detailed information about non-sampled exporting producers which was not ‘necessary information’ for the purpose of the investigation that is based on sampling.
Kitajska vlada je trdila tudi, da je Komisija sprva zahtevala podrobne informacije o nevzorčenih proizvajalcih izvoznikih, ki niso bile „potrebne informacije“ za namen preiskave, ki temelji na vzorčenju.
In this respect it is noted that at the time when the questionnaire intended for the GOC was dispatched, the decision on whether there will or will not be sampling applied in this proceeding was not final.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da v času odpreme vprašalnika, namenjenega kitajski vladi, sklep o tem, ali se bo v tem postopku izvajalo vzorčenje ali ne, ni bil dokončen.
After the Commission received sampling replies from the Chinese exporting producers and it was apparent that the cooperation from exporters' side was high, and once it became clear that the sampled exporters would cooperate by replying adequately to their questionnaires, the Commission did not insist on provision of company specific information on subsidisation from non-sampled exporting producers.
Ko je Komisija prejela izpolnjene vprašalnike glede vzorčenja od kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in je bilo očitno, da je raven sodelovanja izvoznikov visoka, ter ko je postalo jasno, da bi vzorčeni izvozniki sodelovali z ustreznim izpolnjevanjem vprašalnikov, Komisija od nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni zahtevala predložitve informacij o subvencioniranju, specifičnih za družbo.
Therefore the Commission does not agree with this.
Zato se Komisija s tem ne strinja.
The GOC claimed that in the definitive disclosure document the Commission erroneously stated that the GOC withheld certain information in the questionnaire reply and subsequent submissions.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da je Komisija v dokumentu o dokončnem razkritju napačno izjavila, da kitajska vlada v izpolnjenem vprašalniku in nadaljnjih stališčih ni predložila nekaterih informacij.
As the Commission already stated, in its letter of 23 May 2013 to the GOC, the GOC had failed to provide the requested information in respect to the state-owned financial institutions, documents related to Sinosure and provision of export credit insurance, documents related to the Golden Sun Demonstration Programme, and information related to the provision of Land-Use Rights.
Kot je Komisija že izjavila v dopisu za kitajsko vlado z dne 23. maja 2013, kitajska vlada ni predložila potrebnih informacij v zvezi z državnimi finančnimi institucijami, dokumentov v zvezi z družbo Sinosure in zagotavljanjem zavarovanja izvoznih kreditov, dokumentov v zvezi z demonstracijskim programom Golden Sun in informacij v zvezi z zagotavljanjem pravic do uporabe zemljišč.
According to the GOC the Commission had not applied facts available as a mechanism to complete the missing information as prescribed by Panels and the WTO disputes [86] and instead ‘it has applied adverse inferences in a punitive manner and further violated the provisions of SCM Agreement’.
Po mnenju kitajske vlade Komisija ni uporabila razpoložljivih dejstev kot mehanizma za dopolnitev manjkajočih informacij, kot je bilo predpisano s strani odborov in v okviru reševanja sporov STO [86], ampak je namesto tega „uporabila negativne sklepe na kaznovalen način in tako dodatno kršila določbe Sporazuma SIU“.
The GOC further claimed that the Commission did not use facts available ‘solely for the purpose of replacing information that may be missing but as the specific basis for all its findings of subsidisation in complete disregard of the significant amount of information provided by the GOC and financial institutions involved most often on ground of the alleged failure to provide perfect answers or to prove every figure’.
Kitajska vlada je trdila tudi, da Komisija ni uporabila razpoložljivih dejstev „zgolj zaradi nadomestitve pomanjkljivih informacij, ampak kot specifično podlago za vse ugotovitve glede subvencioniranja, ne da bi upoštevala veliko količino informacij, ki so jih posredovale kitajska vlada in udeležene finančne institucije, najpogosteje na podlagi domnevne predložitve nepopolnih odgovorov ali dokazil za posamezne podatke“.
This is not what the Commission did.
Komisija ni storila tega.
All information including plans and legislation submitted by the GOC was considered and analysed and the findings are based on these documents as provided by the GOC, wherever those documents were made available and verification confirmed their accurateness.
Upoštevala in analizirala je vse informacije, ki jih je predložila kitajska vlada, vključno z načrti in zakonodajo, zato ugotovitve temeljijo na teh dokumentih, ki jih je predložila kitajska vlada, če so bili navedeni dokumenti dani na voljo in je preveritev potrdila njihovo točnost.
The frequent citations from these documents supporting the findings are an example of how the Commission treated the information submitted by the GOC.
Pogoste navedbe iz teh dokumentov, na katerih temeljijo ugotovitve, so primer, kako je Komisija obravnavala informacije, ki jih je predložila kitajska vlada.
In recital (110) above the Commission clearly explains the only situations when the information submitted was not taken at its face value.
Komisija v uvodni izjavi (110) jasno razlaga samo primere, ko predloženih informacij v njihovi sedanji obliki ni mogla upoštevati.
The GOC further claimed that the Commission contradicted itself when in the definitive disclosure document it claimed that in this investigation it did request transaction specific information only with regard to the sampled exporters and elsewhere in the same document it stated that ‘the government questionnaire is not limited to the sampled exporters.’ This is not true.
Prav tako je kitajska vlada trdila, da je Komisija nasprotovala sama sebi, ko je v dokumentu o dokončnem razkritju trdila, da je v tej preiskavi zahtevala poslovne informacije le v zvezi z vzorčenimi izvozniki, na drugem mestu v istem dokumentu pa je navedla, da „vprašalnik za vlado ni omejen na vzorčene izvoznike“. To ne drži.
The Commission did not make contradictory statements.
Komisija ni navajala nasprotujočih si izjav.
As already explained in the recital (378) above the Commission limited its initial request on the provision of the company specific information to the sampled exporting producers following the decision to apply sampling.
Kot je že pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (378), je Komisija po sklepu o uporabi vzorčenja omejila svojo prvotno zahtevo po predložitvi informacij, specifičnih za družbo, na vzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike.
However, in order to assess the countervailability of the alleged subsidy schemes, the Commission requested also other information than information related to sampled exporting producers, such as information concerning financial markets in China or market for land use rights.
Vendar je Komisija, da bi ocenila možnost uvedbe izravnalnih ukrepov za domnevne subvencijske sheme, poleg informacij v zvezi z vzorčenimi proizvajalci izvozniki zahtevala tudi druge informacije, npr. v zvezi s finančnimi trgi na Kitajskem ali trgom za pravice do uporabe zemljišč.
It is therefore mentioned that ‘the government questionnaire is not limited to the sampled exporters’.
Zato je navedeno, da „vprašalnik za vlado ni omejen na vzorčene izvoznike“.
The GOC also claimed that the Commission seems to overlook that information cannot simply be rejected if it is not made available for verification.
Kitajska vlada je poleg tega trdila, da naj bi Komisija prezrla dejstvo, da informacij ni mogoče enostavno zavrniti, če niso na voljo za preverjanje.
This is not how the Commission treated information in this proceeding.
Vendar Komisija informacij v tem postopku ni obravnavala na tak način.
On no occasion was the ‘non-availability of verification’ the sole reason for not accepting such information in full.
„Nerazpoložljivost preverjanja“ v nobenem primeru ni bila edini razlog, da te informacije niso bile v celoti upoštevane.
However, when other information on the file was contradicting it and at the same time the GOC was not able to support it with any sort of evidence, such information could not be accepted at its face value.
Kadar so druge informacije v spisu tem informacijam nasprotovale, kitajska vlada pa jih ni mogla podpreti z nobenimi dokazi, takih informacij v njihovi sedanji obliki ni bilo mogoče upoštevati.
According to the GOC, the Commission in paragraph 85 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated above in recital (117)) ‘acknowledged’ that the GOC does not control banking and financial institutions and cannot compel them to provide information.
Po mnenju kitajske vlade je Komisija v odstavku 85 dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju (kot je ponovljeno v uvodni izjavi (117)) „priznala“, da kitajska vlada ne nadzoruje bančnih in finančnih institucij ter od njih ne more zahtevati predložitve informacij.
It is noted that the Commission is not aware of such statement and after reviewing the text of the recital it does not seem to be the case.
Poudariti je treba, da Komisija ni seznanjena s tako izjavo in da je po pregledu besedila uvodne izjave ugotovila, da trditev kitajske vlade ne drži.
The GOC claimed that the Commission seemed to concur with the GOC that the national laws cannot be superseded in the case of an investigation by the requirements of the EU's basic Regulation or the SCM Agreement.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da naj bi se Komisija strinjala z njo, da nacionalnih zakonov v primeru preiskave ne morejo izpodriniti zahteve osnovne protidampinške uredbe EU ali Sporazuma SIU.
The link the GOC made to the non-provision of allegedly confidential information is missing the point.
Povezava z nepredložitvijo domnevno zaupnih informacij, ki jo je navedla kitajska vlada, je nesmiselna.
The Commission however argued (recital (117) above) that the provisions of municipal law or internal rules of the WTO Member cannot absolve it from its WTO obligations to cooperate with the investigations and in case of conflict it is up to the GOC to suggest the ways in which access can be afforded to information so that it can be adequately verified.
Komisija pa je trdila (uvodna izjava (117)), da določbe občinske zakonodaje ali notranja pravila članice STO ne razrešujejo zavez STO k sodelovanju v preiskavah, v primerih spora pa mora kitajska vlada predlagati načine za dostop do informacij, da se lahko ustrezno preverijo.
The GOC referred to the situation when one bank official provided one credit risk assessment for a sampled company as an example of suggesting a way to verify allegedly limited information and stated that ‘the Commission was still not satisfied’.
Kitajska vlada je navedla primer, ko je uradnik ene banke predložil eno oceno kreditnega tveganja za vzorčeno družbo kot primer načina za preverjanje domnevno omejenih informacij, in trdila, da „Komisija še vedno ni bila zadovoljna“.
On the contrary, as is clear from the wording of recital (148) above), the Commission did not take an issue with the verification of this particular document and took this information fully into account in its findings.
Vendar, kot pojasnjuje besedilo uvodne izjave (148), Komisija ni imela pomislekov glede preverjanja tega določenega dokumenta in je te informacije v celoti upoštevala pri ugotovitvah.
However, this was an exceptional situation and unfortunately was not replicated for most of the information of similar nature requested in this proceeding.
Vendar je bil to izreden primer, ki se žal ni ponovil pri večini podobnih informacij, ki so bile zahtevane v tem postopku.
In this regard, the GOC continued to claim that ‘sensitive internal documents’ of banks were envisaged to be relevant information under the SCM Agreement, and their non-production could not lead to the application of facts available.
V zvezi s tem je kitajska vlada še vedno trdila, da se je „občutljiva notranja dokumentacija“ bank štela za pomembne informacije v skladu s Sporazumom SIU in da njena nepredložitev ne bi mogla prispevati k uporabi razpoložljivih dejstev.
The Commission finds this statement much too sweeping and does not see how proper verification (carried out with due confidentiality procedures in place) could be undertaken in all cases if such documents (including those involving transactions with clients) are simply withheld.
Komisija meni, da je ta izjava preveč posplošena, in ni prepričana, kako bi bilo mogoče v vseh primerih izvesti ustrezno preverjanje (z vzpostavljenimi ustreznimi postopki varovanja poslovnih skrivnosti), če taka dokumentacija (tudi v zvezi s poslovanjem s strankami) enostavno ne bi bila predložena.
In the absence of verifications, facts available may have to be used to fill gaps in fact-gathering.
Če preverjanja ne bi bila izvedena, bi bilo morda treba razpoložljiva dejstva uporabiti za zapolnitev vrzeli v zbiranju dejstev.
The GOC repeatedly claimed that the pre-verification letter did not contain specific questions concerning verification and referred to the Commission letter of 23 May 2013 which used this wording.
Kitajska vlada je večkrat trdila, da predpreveritveno pismo ni vsebovalo posebnih vprašanj v zvezi s preverjanjem in se je sklicevalo na dopis Komisije z dne 23. maja 2013, ki je vsebovalo to besedilo.
The Commission, however, in paragraph 86 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated as recital (118) above) stated that the pre-verification letter of 25 March 2013 contained a very specific and detailed list of issues and documents which would be addressed during the verification, fully in line with the Article 26(3) of the basic Regulation and the WTO requirements.
Komisija pa je v odstavku 86 dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju (kot je ponovljeno v uvodni izjavi (118)) navedla, da je predpreveritveno pismo z dne 25. marca 2013 vsebovalo zelo specifičen in podroben seznam vprašanj in dokumentov, ki bi bili obravnavani med preverjanjem, kar je popolnoma v skladu s členom 26(3) osnovne uredbe in zahtevami STO.
The absence of a list of specific questions, provision of which has no basis in the basic Regulation or WTO rules, is not an excuse for the GOC being unable to fully cooperate during the verification.
Odsotnosti seznama specifičnih vprašanj, katerega predložitev ni utemeljena na podlagi osnovne uredbe ali pravil STO, kitajska vlada ne more uporabiti kot izgovor za to, da med preverjanjem ni mogla v celoti sodelovati.
The GOC claimed that the Commission showed a complete absence of flexibility during the verification.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da je Komisija med preverjanjem pokazala popolno odsotnost prožnosti.
This is a misinterpretation of facts and situation before and during the verification visit.
Pri tem gre za napačno tolmačenje dejstev in razmer pred in med preveritvenim obiskom.
As already explained in paragraphs 88 — 90 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated as recitals (120) — (122) above) the degree of flexibility shown by the Commission was full and unconditional.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno v odstavkih 88–90 dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju (ponovljeno v uvodnih izjavah od (120) do (122)), je bila raven prožnosti Komisije popolna in brezpogojna.
Unfortunately, attempts by the GOC to provide information which there was no possibility to verify within the schedule of the on-site visits meant that such information could not be cross-checked and given the weight of a verified document.
Žal zaradi poskusov kitajske vlade, da zagotovi informacije, ki jih ni bilo mogoče preveriti v časovnem okviru obiskov na kraju samem, teh informacij ni bilo mogoče navzkrižno preveriti in označiti kot preverjen dokument.
The GOC also reminded the Commission of WTO case law from the EC-Salmon panel that whether documents are ‘verifiable’ is not always determined only by the possibility of on-the-spot investigations and claimed that the Commission cannot reject information simply because it is not available at verification visits.
Kitajska vlada je prav tako opozorila Komisijo na sodno prakso STO iz poročila odbora Evropske skupnosti – losos, v skladu s katero „preverljivost“ dokumentov ni vedno odvisna od možnosti preiskav na kraju samem, in trdila, da Komisija ne more zavrniti informacij zgolj zaradi tega, ker niso bile razpoložljive ob preveritvenih obiskih.
The Commission notes that such information, not being susceptible to on-spot verification to test is reliability and accuracy, may be given less weight that if it had been properly verified and that this sometimes happened in the present case.
Komisija poudarja, da se lahko takim informacijam, katerih zanesljivosti in točnosti ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti s preverjanjem na kraju samem, pripiše manjši pomen, kot če bi bile ustrezno preverjene, in da se je to v tem primeru včasih zgodilo.
The GOC contests the Commission's alleged practice not to accept new documents and evidence which require verification after the end of the verification session to which they belong.
Kitajska vlada ugovarja domnevni praksi Komisije, da ne sprejema novih dokumentov in dokazil, ki bi jih bilo treba preveriti po izvedenem preverjanju, v okviru katerega bi se sicer morali preveriti.
As already explained in the paragraph 89 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated in recital (121) above) this is not and never was the case.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno v odstavku 89 dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju (kot je ponovljeno v uvodni izjavi (121)), ta trditev ne drži in nikoli ni držala.
It is true that the Commission cannot normally accept documents as verification exhibits once the verification session is over and it is not practically possible to verify such documents, but nothing prevents the GOC from submitting such documents in writing which in fact happened in this case as well.
Res je, da Komisija običajno ne more sprejeti dokumentov kot listinskih dokazov za preverjanje, ko je preverjanje že bilo izvedeno, in da preverjanje takih dokumentov praktično ni izvedljivo, vendar pa kitajski vladi nič ne preprečuje, da predloži take dokumente v pisni obliki, kot se je v tem primeru tudi dejansko zgodilo.
The GOC claimed that the Commission did not explain the reason for requesting the six documents referred to in recital (122) above and on this basis their verification was not permitted.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da Komisija ni pojasnila razloga za to, da je zahtevala predložitev šestih dokumentov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (122), in da zato njihovo preverjanje ni bilo dovoljeno.
Therefore it is obvious from their names and content that they were relevant for the investigation.
Zato je na podlagi njihovih imen in vsebine očitno, da so bili pomembni za preiskavo.
However the GOC simply refused to answer any questions in this respect during the verification, citing the alleged irrelevance of the document for the proceeding as the only reason.
Vendar kitajska vlada med preverjanjem ni želela odgovoriti na nobena vprašanja v zvezi s tem, kot edini razlog za to pa je navedla domnevno nepomembnost dokumenta za postopek.
The GOC claimed that it could not provide the supporting evidence for the information it provided in the questionnaire reply concerning percentage of loans granted to the industry concerned as this information was held by the banks which are independent entities and not GOC departments and that the Commission should verify the figures at the banks.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da ni mogla zagotoviti dokazil za informacije, ki jih je posredovala v izpolnjenem vprašalniku, v zvezi z odstotkom posojil, odobrenih zadevni industriji, saj so s temi informacijami razpolagale banke, ki so neodvisni subjekti in ne službe kitajske vlade, in da bi morala Komisija preveriti podatke pri bankah.