natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, all claims and allegations that by using an international price the Commission did not make a fair comparison between normal value and export price are unfounded.
Zato so vsi zahtevki in trditve v zvezi s tem, da Komisija ni opravila poštene primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno, ker je uporabila mednarodno ceno, neutemeljeni.
The same applies to the claim that the Commission did not take into account the natural competitive advantage of the Argentine producers, because the replacement of the costs recorded by the companies was due to the abnormally low price of raw material in the domestic market, rather than to a comparative advantage.
Enako velja za trditev, da Komisija ni upoštevala naravne konkurenčne prednosti argentinskih proizvajalcev, saj je bil razlog za nadomestitev stroškov, ki so jih evidentirale družbe, neobičajno nizka cena surovin na domačem trgu, ne pa primerjalna prednost.
In recital 45 of the provisional Regulation, it was explained that since domestic sales were not considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade, normal value had to be constructed using a reasonable amount for profit of 15 % pursuant to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
V uvodni izjavi 45 začasne uredbe je pojasnjeno, da se za domačo prodajo ni štelo, da je bila izvedena v običajnem poteku trgovine, zato je bilo treba normalno vrednost konstruirati na podlagi 15-odstotnega razumnega zneska dobička v skladu s členom 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Some exporting producers claimed that the percentage used by the Commission as a reasonable profit (15 %) when constructing normal value was unrealistically high and a radical change in the established practice in a number of other investigations in similar commodity-related markets (i.e. where the profit used was about 5 %).
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da je bil odstotek, ki ga je Komisija pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti uporabila kot razumni dobiček (15 %), nerealno velik in se je radikalno razlikoval od ustaljene prakse številnih drugih preiskav na podobnih blagovnih trgih (v zvezi s katerimi se je uporabil 5-odstotni dobiček).
First of all, it is incorrect that the Commission uses systematically a 5 % profit margin when constructing normal value.
Prvič, ne drži, da Komisija pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti sistematično uporablja 5-odstotno stopnjo dobička.
Every situation is assessed on its own merits taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
Vsak primer je ocenjen samostojno ob upoštevanju njegovih posebnih okoliščin.
For example, in the 2009 biodiesel case against the United States, various different profit levels were used with the weighted average profit being well above 15 %.
V zadevi v zvezi z biodizlom iz leta 2009, v kateri je bila vložena tožba proti Združenim državam Amerike, so se na primer uporabile različne stopnje dobička, pri čemer je tehtan povprečni dobiček bistveno presegal 15 %.
Second, the Commission looked also at the short and medium term borrowing rate in Argentina which is around 14 % according to the World Bank data.
Drugič, Komisija je upoštevala tudi kratkoročno in srednjeročno posojilno obrestno mero v Argentini, ki po podatkih Svetovne banke znaša približno 14 %.
It certainly seems reasonable to expect a higher profit margin to be obtained when doing business in the domestic biodiesel markets than the borrowing cost of capital.
Nedvomno se zdi razumno pričakovati, da bo stopnja dobička, dosežena pri poslovanju na domačih trgih biodizla, višja od stroškov izposoje kapitala.
Furthermore, this profit is even lower than the profit realised during the IP by the producers of the product concerned, albeit that level results from distortions in costs brought about by the DET and domestic biodiesel prices regulated by the State.
Poleg tega je ta dobiček celo nižji od dobička proizvajalcev zadevnega izdelka v OP, čeprav so na to raven vplivala izkrivljanja stroškov zaradi sistemov diferenciranih izvoznih davkov in dejstvo, da domače cene biodizla ureja država.
Therefore, and for the reasons explained above, it is maintained that 15 % profit is a reasonable amount that can be achieved by a relatively new, capital-intensive industry in Argentina.
Na podlagi tega in zgoraj navedenih razlogov je 15-odstotni dobiček razumen znesek, ki ga lahko doseže sorazmerno nova, kapitalsko intenzivna industrija v Argentini.
Following definitive disclosure, CARBIO and the Argentine authorities claimed that (i) the reference to the profit levels in the US case was unjustified; (ii) the reference of the medium-term borrowing rate lacks logic, was never used in the past and if such a benchmark is to be used, it should not be that of Argentina because investments were made in US dollars together with foreign entities; (iii) the profit actually earned by the Argentine producers could not be taken into account due to the particular market situation; and (iv) by comparison the Union industry target profit was set at 11 %.
Po dokončnem razkritju so CARBIO in argentinski organi zatrjevali, da (i) je sklicevanje na stopnje dobička v Združenih državah neupravičeno; (ii) sklicevanje na srednjeročno posojilno obrestno mero ni logično in se v preteklosti ni nikoli uporabljalo, če pa bi se referenčna vrednost uporabila, se ne bi smela uporabiti za Argentino, ker so bile naložbe opravljene v ameriških dolarjih v sodelovanju s tujimi subjekti; (iii) dobička, ki so ga dejansko zaslužili argentinski proizvajalci, ni mogoče upoštevati zaradi posebnih tržnih razmer; in (iv) da je bil ciljni dobiček industrije Unije na podlagi primerjav določen pri 11 %.
Those claims must be rejected.
Te trditve je treba zato zavrniti.
The Commission considered that a 15 % profit margin was reasonable for the biodiesel industry in Argentina, since in that country during the IP it was still a young and capital intensive industry.
Komisija je mnenja, da je stopnja dobička v višini 15 % za industrijo biodizla v Argentini razumno določena, saj je imela ta država v OP še mlado in kapitalsko intenzivno industrijo.
The reference to the profit margin in the US case was made to rebut the claim that the Commission uses systematically a 5 % profit margin when constructing normal value.
Sklicevanje na stopnjo dobička v primeru ZDA je bilo opravljeno, da bi se ovrgla trditev, da Komisija sistematično uporablja 5-odstotno stopnjo dobička pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti.
The reference to the medium-term borrowing rate also was not meant to set a benchmark but to test the reasonableness of the margin used.
Namen sklicevanja na srednjeročne posojilne obrestne mere ni bila določitev referenčne vrednosti, temveč preverjanje, ali je bila uporabljena stopnja razumno določena.
The same applies to the profit actually earned by the sampled companies.
Enako velja za dobiček, ki so ga dejansko ustvarile vzorčene družbe.
On the other hand, since the purpose of constructing normal value is different from the calculation of the target profit for the Union industry in the absence of dumped imports, any comparison between the two is irrelevant.
Po drugi strani ima konstruiranje normalne vrednosti drugačen namen od izračuna ciljnega dobička za industrijo Unije v odsotnosti dampinškega uvoza, zato je kakršna koli primerjava med njima nepomembna.
Therefore, recital 46 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Zato se uvodna izjava 46 začasne uredbe potrdi.
One exporting producer manufactures biodiesel partly in its own plants and partly via a tolling agreement with an independent producer.
En proizvajalec izvoznik proizvaja biodizel delno v svojih obratih in delno v okviru sporazuma o podizvajanju, sklenjenega z neodvisnim proizvajalcem.
This exporting producer requested that its cost of production be recalculated using a different weighted average of its own cost of production and of the cost of production of the toller than the one used by the Commission at provisional stage.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval, da se njegovi stroški proizvodnje ponovno izračunajo, in sicer na podlagi tehtanega povprečja njegovih stroškov proizvodnje in stroškov proizvodnje podizvajalca, ki se razlikujeta od tehtanega povprečja, ki ga je Komisija uporabila v začasni fazi.
This request was analysed and found to be justified and the cost of production for the company concerned was recalculated accordingly.
Na podlagi analize te zahteve je bilo ugotovljeno, da je zahteva upravičena, zato so se stroški proizvodnje zadevne družbe ustrezno ponovno izračunali.
The Commission received other minor company-specific claims but they became moot following the change in methodology of constructing the normal value as explained above.
Komisija je prejela še druge manjše zahteve posameznih družb, ki pa so po spremembi metodologije za konstruiranje normalne vrednosti, kakor je pojasnjena zgoraj, postale nepomembne.
Therefore, the findings in recitals 40 to 46 of the provisional Regulation are, with the modifications explained above, hereby confirmed.
Zato se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od 40 do 46 začasne uredbe, ki vključujejo zgoraj pojasnjene spremembe, potrdijo.
In recital 49 of the provisional Regulation, it was explained that when export sales were made through related trading companies located inside the Union, adjustments were made to the export price, including for the profit accruing to the related trader in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
V uvodni izjavi 49 začasne uredbe je pojasnjeno, da se je izvozna cena v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe prilagodila, če je izvozna prodaja potekala prek povezanih trgovskih družb s sedežem v Uniji, da bi se med drugim upošteval dobiček povezanih trgovcev.
For the purpose of that calculation, a level of profit of 5 % for the related trader inside the Union was considered reasonable.
Za ta izračun se je v zvezi s povezanim trgovcem s sedežem v Uniji za razumno štela 5-odstotna stopnja dobička.
Two exporting producers claimed that a 5 % profit margin for the related trader within the Union was too high in the commodity trading business and that either no profit, or a lower percentage should be used (up to 2 % depending on the companies).
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika sta navedla, da je 5-odstotna stopnja dobička za povezanega trgovca s sedežem v Uniji na področju trgovanja z blagom previsoka in da je treba uporabiti ničelno ali nižjo stopnjo dobička (do 2 %, odvisno od družbe).
No evidence was provided in support of this claim.
V podporo tej trditvi niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi.
In these circumstances the 5 % profit level for related traders within the EU is confirmed.
V teh okoliščinah se 5-odstotna stopnja dobička za povezane trgovce s sedežem v EU potrdi.
Following definitive disclosure, CARBIO maintained that a profit margin of 5 % was too high in the commodity trading business and referred to a study prepared by KPMG specifically for this purpose and submitted to the Commission on 1 July 2013 following disclosure of the provisional Regulation.
Po dokončnem razkritju je CARBIO trdil, da je 5-odstotna stopnja dobička na področju trgovanja z blagom previsoka, pri čemer se je skliceval na študijo, ki jo je pripravilo podjetje KPMG posebej za ta namen ter jo 1. julija 2013 po razkritju začasne uredbe predložilo Komisiji.
The Commission considered that the findings of the study could not be relied upon due to the limitations to the analysis referred to in the study itself, which led to a selection of a limited number of trading companies, half of which were not selling agricultural products.
Komisija je bila mnenja, da se na ugotovitve študije ni mogoče zanesti zaradi omejitev analize, na katere študija opozarja in zaradi katerih je bilo izbrano omejeno število trgovskih podjetij, polovica od teh družb pa ni prodajala kmetijskih proizvodov.
Therefore, the evidence provided is considered to be inconclusive.
Zato se šteje, da predloženi dokazi nimajo dokazne moči.
As a consequence, the 5 % margin of profit for the related traders in the EU is confirmed.
Posledično se 5-odstotna stopnja dobička za povezane trgovce v EU potrdi.
One exporting producer complained that when establishing the export price the Commission did not take into account the so-called ‘hedging results’, i.e. the gain or losses incurred by the producer when selling and purchasing future contracts of soybean oil at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).
En proizvajalec izvoznik se je pritožil, da Komisija pri določitvi izvozne cene ni upoštevala tako imenovanih „rezultatov zavarovanja pred tveganji“, tj. dobička ali izgub proizvajalca pri prodaji in nakupu standardiziranih terminskih pogodb za sojino olje v okviru čikaške trgovinske zbornice.
The company insisted that hedging is a necessary element of the biodiesel business because of the volatility of raw material price, and that the net revenue for the biodiesel seller is not only the price paid by the purchaser, but also the profit (or loss) of the underlying hedging operations.
Podjetje je vztrajalo, da je zavarovanje pred tveganji zaradi nihanja cene surovin nujen element poslovanja z biodizlom in da neto prihodek prodajalca biodizla ne vključuje le cene, ki jo plača kupec, ampak tudi dobiček (ali izgubo) povezanih operacij zavarovanja pred tveganjem.
That claim must be rejected because Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation clearly provides that the export price shall be the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export, regardless of any separate — albeit related — gain or loss linked to hedging practices.
To trditev je treba zavrniti na podlagi člena 2(8) osnovne uredbe, ki jasno določa, da je izvozna cena tista cena, ki se je dejansko plačala ali se plačuje za izdelek, ko se ta izvozi, ne glede na kakršne koli ločene – čeprav povezane – dobičke ali izgube, povezane s prakso zavarovanja pred tveganji.
In the absence of any further comments regarding export prices, recitals 47 to 49 of the provisional Regulation are, with the changes mentioned above, hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nadaljnjih pripomb v zvezi z izvoznimi cenami, se uvodne izjave 47 do 49 začasne uredbe skupaj z zgoraj navedenimi spremembami potrdijo.
In recital 53 of the provisional Regulation, it was explained that when export sales were made through related trading companies located outside the EU, the Commission examined whether the related trader should be treated as an agent working on a commission basis and, if so, an adjustment was made in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation to take account of a notional mark-up received by the trader.
V uvodni izjavi 53 začasne uredbe je pojasnjeno, da je Komisija, kadar je izvozna prodaja potekala prek povezanih trgovskih družb s sedežem zunaj Unije, proučila, ali je treba povezanega trgovca obravnavati kot agenta, ki dela na podlagi provizije, pri čemer se je v tem primeru izvedla prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, tako da se je upošteval nominalni pribitek, ki ga je prejel trgovec.
One company claimed that the profit margin used by the Commission for the related trader outside the EU as a notional mark-up was too high and that a lower profit margin would be more reasonable.
Ena družba je trdila, da je stopnja dobička, ki jo je Komisija uporabila kot nominalni pribitek v zvezi s povezanim trgovcem s sedežem zunaj Unije, previsoka in da bi bila ustreznejša nižja stopnja dobička.
The Commission examined carefully the arguments put forward by the exporting producer, but concluded that in light of the extensive activities carried out by the related traders, a profit margin of 5 % was considered reasonable.
Komisija je pozorno proučila trditve proizvajalca izvoznika, vendar je sklenila, da se ob upoštevanju obsežnih dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo povezani trgovci, 5-odstotna stopnja dobička šteje za razumno.
Therefore, that claim must be rejected.
Zato je treba to trditev zavrniti.
In the absence of any other comments regarding comparison, recitals 50 to 55 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s primerjavo ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb, se uvodne izjave 50 do 55 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
All cooperating Argentine exporting producers requested that if an anti-dumping duty were to be imposed on imports of biodiesel from Argentina, there should be a single duty for all cooperating exporting producers, based on the weighted average of the anti-dumping duties of all exporting producers in the sample.
Vsi sodelujoči argentinski proizvajalci izvozniki so zahtevali, da je treba v primeru uvedbe protidampinške dajatve na uvoz biodizla iz Argentine uvesti enotno dajatev za vse sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike, izračunano na podlagi tehtanega povprečja protidampinških dajatev vseh proizvajalcev izvoznikov v vzorcu.
They supported this request by claiming that all sampled producers have commercial or other links among each other, they produce, sell, loan or swap biodiesel to each other and often the product of various companies is loaded together in the same ocean vessel and shipped to the EU and it is no longer possible for customs authorities to identify and distinguish the product of different producers.
To zahtevo so podprli s trditvijo, da so vsi vzorčeni proizvajalci med seboj trgovinsko ali drugače povezani, da proizvajajo, si prodajajo, posojajo biodizel ali ga izmenjavajo ter da so izdelki različnih družb pogosto skupaj natovorjeni na isto ladjo in odpremljeni v EU, tako da carinski organi ne morejo več opredeliti in razlikovati med izdelki različnih proizvajalcev.
These peculiar circumstances were said to render the imposition of individual duties impracticable.
Po njihovih navedbah je zaradi teh posebnih okoliščin uvedba individualnih dajatev neizvedljiva.
Notwithstanding the fact that the request comes from all exporting producers, even including those with a lower individual dumping margin than the weighted average margin, and despite the potential simplification for the customs authorities, this request should be rejected.
Ne glede na to, da zahtevo podpirajo vsi proizvajalci izvozniki, tudi tisti z individualno stopnjo dampinga, nižjo od stopnje tehtanega povprečja, in kljub možni poenostavitvi postopkov carinskih organov bi bilo treba to zahtevo zavrniti.
Indeed, alleged practical difficulties should not be used as an excuse to derogate from the provisions of the basic Regulation unless it is unavoidable.
Domnevne praktične težave se ne bi smele uporabiti kot izgovor za odstopanje od določb osnovne uredbe, razen če je to neizogibno.
In this case, the companies’ practice to swap, borrow or otherwise mingle the product concerned does not in itself render the imposition of individual duties impracticable in the meaning of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.
V tem primeru praksa družb, da izmenjavajo zadevni izdelek, si ga izposojajo ali drugače pomešajo, sama po sebi ne pomeni, da je uvedba individualnih dajatev neizvedljiva v smislu člena 9(6) osnovne uredbe.
Three companies requested that their names be included in the list of cooperating exporting producers in order to benefit from the anti-dumping duty rate of the cooperating non-sampled companies rather than the residual duty for ‘all other companies’.
Tri družbe so zahtevale vključitev na seznam sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi namesto od preostale dajatve za „vse druge družbe“ imela koristi od stopnje protidampinške dajatve, ki se uporablja za sodelujoče nevzorčene družbe.
Two of the three companies were already manufacturing biodiesel for the domestic market or under tolling agreements for other exporting producers during the IP, but they were not themselves exporting to the Union.
Dve od treh družb sta v OP že proizvajali biodizel za domači trg ali na podlagi sporazuma o podizvajanju za druge proizvajalce izvoznike, nista pa sami izvažali v Unijo.
The third company was not producing biodiesel during the IP since its plant was still under construction at that time.
Tretja družba ni proizvajala biodizla v OP, ker je bil takrat obrat družbe še v gradnji.
The Commission considers that the conditions for being considered a cooperating exporting producer are not met in the cases of the three companies referred to above.
Po mnenju Komisije navedene tri družbe ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za uvrstitev med sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike.
This applies not only to the company which was not producing biodiesel at all during the IP, but also to the companies which cooperated with the investigation by submitting a sampling form, since in their sampling reply they made it clear that they were producing for the domestic market or for third parties but they were not exporting biodiesel to the Union on their own name.
To ne velja le za družbo, ki v OP sploh ni proizvajala biodizla, ampak tudi za družbi, ki sta v preiskavi sodelovali s predložitvijo obrazca za vzorčenje, saj sta v svojih odgovorih v okviru vzorčenja jasno navedli, da proizvajata za domači trg ali za tretje osebe in da biodizla ne izvažata v Unijo v lastnem imenu.
This request must therefore be rejected and the ‘residual’ anti-dumping duty should apply to the three companies in question.
Zato je treba to zahtevo zavrniti in za zadevne tri družbe uporabiti „preostalo“ protidampinško dajatev.
Taking into account the adjustments made to the normal value and to the export price as set out above, and in the absence of any further comments, the table in recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is replaced by the following and the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:
Ob upoštevanju prilagoditev normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene, kot so določene zgoraj, in ker ni bilo dodatnih pripomb, se preglednica iz uvodne izjave 59 začasne uredbe nadomesti s preglednico spodaj, pri čemer so dokončne stopnje dampinga, izražene kot odstotek cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve, naslednje:
Group ‘Renova’ (Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., Oleaginosa MoreNo Hermanos S.A.F.I.C.I. y A. and Vicentin S.A.I.C.)
Skupina „Renova“ (Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos S.A.F.I.C.I. y A. in Vicentin S.A.I.C.)
As mentioned above in recitals 28 to 34, the Commission has now reached the conclusion that the DET system in Indonesia distorts the costs of production of biodiesel producers in that country and that therefore the costs associated with the production and sale of the product concerned are not reasonably reflected in the records kept by the Indonesian producers under investigation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 28 do 34, je Komisija sklenila, da sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov v Indoneziji izkrivlja stroške proizvodnje proizvajalcev biodizla v tej državi in da zato stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka, niso razumno izraženi v evidencah indonezijskih proizvajalcev v preiskavi.
The Commission has therefore decided to revise recital 63 of the provisional Regulation and disregard the actual costs of crude palm oil (CPO), the main raw material purchased and used in the production of biodiesel, as recorded by the companies concerned in their accounts and to replace them with the price at which those companies would have purchased the CPO in the absence of such a distortion.
Komisija se je zato odločila revidirati uvodno izjavo 63 začasne uredbe, pri čemer bo zanemarila dejanske stroške surovega palmovega olja, torej glavne surovine, ki se kupuje in uporablja v proizvodnji biodizla, kot so jih zadevne družbe evidentirale v svojih računovodskih izkazih, in jih nadomestila s ceno, po kateri bi te družbe kupile surovo palmovo olje, če ne bi bilo takšnega izkrivljanja.
The investigation has confirmed that the price level for the domestically traded CPO is significantly depressed as compared to the ‘international’ reference price, the difference being very close to the export tax applied to CPO.
Preiskava je potrdila, da je raven cen doma prodanega surovega palmovega olja bistveno nižja od „mednarodne“ referenčne cene, pri čemer je razlika zelo blizu znesku izvoznega davka za surovo palmovo olje.