natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the reasons for the exclusion of STAF were numerous, and the absence of dual interchangeability by itself was not considered a sufficient ground by the General Court in the Brosmann [11] case, which confirmed that very different product such as city trotters and hiking boots can indeed be considered product concerned in a single anti-dumping investigation despite their differences.
Vendar so bili razlogi za izključitev obutve STAF številni in odsotnost dvojne zamenljivosti same po sebi za Splošno sodišče v zadevi Brosmann [11] ni bil zadosten razlog, kar potrjuje, da se lahko zelo različni izdelki, na primer mestni in pohodniški čevlji, kljub razlikam štejejo za zadevni izdelek v eni sami protidampinški preiskavi.
In addition, the interested party argued that the absence of production in the Union and the fact that the interested party holds intellectual property rights is allegedly a confirmation that roof-integrated solar modules are innovative and different from any other product.
Zainteresirana stran je trdila, da naj bi odsotnost proizvodnje v Uniji in dejstvo, da ima zainteresirana stran pravice intelektualne lastnine, potrjevala inovativnost in drugačnost strešno integriranih solarnih modulov.
However, referring again to the footwear case mentioned by the interested party, the General Court held in Brosmann that ‘the absence of Community production of that type of footwear and the existence of a patent are not conclusive.’ [12].
Glede primera v zvezi z obutvijo, ki jo je omenila zainteresirana stran, pa je Splošno sodišče v zadevi Brosmann navedlo, da „odsotnost proizvodnje Skupnosti navedene vrste obutve in obstoj patenta nista odločilna dejavnika“ [12].
As a result, patented technology footwear was considered product concerned in that case.
Zato se je obutev, narejena s patentirano tehnologijo, v navedenem primeru štela za zadevni izdelek.
The interested party also argued that roof-integrated solar modules should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned, since they are sold at substantially higher prices than standard modules.
Zainteresirana stran je prav tako trdila, da je treba strešno integrirane solarne module izključiti iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka, saj se prodajajo po znatno višji ceni kot standardni moduli.
Also, in the footwear case STAF above a certain price were excluded from the definition of the product concerned.
Tudi v primeru v zvezi z obutvijo je bila obutev STAF nad določeno ceno izključena iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka.
In this respect, it is noted that a roof-integrated solar module does combine the functionality of a solar module and roof tile or slate, as indicated in recital (66) above.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da strešno integrirani solarni modul združuje funkcionalnost solarnega modula in funkcionalnost strešnika ali skrilavca, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (66).
A direct comparison of prices is therefore not meaningful, as the added functionality naturally leads to higher prices.
Neposredna primerjava cen je zato brezpredmetna, saj dodana funkcionalnost seveda vodi k višjim cenam.
In response to this argument, the interested party argued that on the basis of this argumentation, it would be impossible to ever invoke price differences as an additional indicator warranting the exclusion from the product scope.
V odgovoru na ta argument je zainteresirana stran trdila, da bi se bilo na podlagi teh argumentov nemogoče sklicevati na razlike v cenah kot dodatnega znaka, ki bi zadostoval za izločitev iz obsega izdelkov.
However, this interpretation is too far-reaching.
Vendar je ta razlaga preveč daljnosežna.
What is said in the previous recital is merely that in this particular case where the roof-integrated modules combine the functionality of the product concerned plus another product (in this case roof tile or slate), the price is naturally not meaningful.
Prejšnja uvodna izjava navaja le, da v tem določenem primeru, kjer strešno integrirani moduli združujejo funkcionalnost zadevnega izdelka in še enega izdelka (v tem primeru strešnika ali skrilavca), cena seveda ni pomembna.
This in no way means that in other cases the price difference cannot be a useful indicator to establish whether a product should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned.
To vsekakor ne pomeni, da v drugih primerih razlika v cenah ne more biti uporaben kazalec za določanje, ali se izdelek izključi iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka.
Lastly, the interested party argued that its supplier of roof-integrated solar modules should be granted access to the minimum price undertaking.
Nazadnje, zainteresirana stran je trdila, da bi bilo treba njenemu dobavitelju strešno integriranih solarnih modulov odobriti dostop do minimalne cenovne zaveze.
However, it appears that the Chinese exporter concerned did not co-operate in the investigation, and as a non-cooperating party is not eligible to participate in the undertaking.
Vendar pa je videti, da zadevni kitajski izvoznik ni sodeloval v preiskavi in kot nesodelujoča stran ni upravičen do sodelovanja v zavezi.
These request can therefore not be accepted.
Te zahteve zato ni mogoče sprejeti.
In view of the above, the product scope is definitively defined as crystalline silicon PV modules or panels and cells of the type used in crystalline silicon PV modules or panels, originating in or consigned from the PRC unless they are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT.
Glede na navedeno se obseg izdelka dokončno opredeli kot fotonapetostni moduli ali paneli iz kristalnega silicija ter celice, ki se uporabljajo v fotonapetostnih modulih ali panelih iz kristalnega silicija, s poreklom iz LRK ali ki so od tam poslani, razen če so v tranzitu v smislu člena V GATT.
The cells have a thickness not exceeding 400 micrometres.
Celice so debeline največ 400 mikrometrov.
This product is currently falling within CN codes ex85013100, ex85013200, ex85013300, ex85013400, ex85016120, ex85016180, ex85016200, ex85016300, ex85016400 and ex85414090.
Ta izdelek je trenutno uvrščen pod oznake KN ex85013100, ex85013200, ex85013300, ex85013400, ex85016120, ex85016180, ex85016200, ex85016300, ex85016400 in ex85414090.
solar chargers that consist of less than six cells, are portable and supply electricity to devices or charge batteries,
solarni napajalniki, ki so sestavljeni iz manj kot šestih celic, so prenosni in z električno energijo napajajo naprave ali baterije,
crystalline silicon photovoltaic products that are permanently integrated into electrical goods, where the function of the electrical goods is other than power generation, and where these electrical goods consume the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell(s),
fotonapetostni izdelki iz kristalnega silicija, ki so trajno vgrajeni v električne naprave, kadar funkcija električnih naprav ni proizvodnja električne energije in kadar se te električne naprave napajajo z električno energijo, ki jo proizvedejo integrirane fotonapetostne celice iz kristalnega silicija,
modules or panels with a output voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in systems with the same voltage and power characteristics.
moduli ali paneli z izhodno napetostjo, ki ne presega 50 V pri enosmernem toku, in izhodno močjo, ki ne presega 50 W, namenjeni izključno za neposredno polnjenje baterij v sistemih z enakimi značilnostmi glede napetosti in moči.
Following the exclusion of wafers, the analysis has been revised by excluding the data and analysis related to wafers, unless otherwise indicated.
Po izključitvi rezin je bila analiza spremenjena z izključitvijo podatkov in analize v zvezi z rezinami, če ni bilo določeno drugače.
Given that wafers represented only a small percentage of imports of the product concerned in the Union (around 2 % in value) during the IP, the exclusion of wafers is considered to have a negligible impact if any on the findings.
Glede na to, da so rezine predstavljale le majhen delež uvoza zadevnega izdelka v Uniji (približno 2 % vrednosti) med OP, se šteje, da je imela izključitev rezin zanemarljiv vpliv na ugotovitve ali pa nanje sploh ni vplivala.
All comments by interested parties have been addressed but any reference to wafers even if raised has been excluded.
Obravnavane so bile vse pripombe zainteresiranih strani, vendar se je izključilo vsako sklicevanje na rezine, tudi če je bilo izpostavljeno.
As a consequence all references and related data concerning wafers reported in the recitals to the provisional Regulation are no longer applicable, even when relevant recitals are confirmed by this Regulation.
Zato se vsa sklicevanja na rezine in povezani podatki v zvezi z rezinami, navedeni v uvodnih izjavah začasne uredbe, ne uporabljajo več, tudi če se zadevne uvodne izjave potrdijo s to uredbo.
Consequently, the provisional conclusions, modified as set out under recitals (26) to (74) above, were definitively confirmed.
Zato se začasni sklepi, kot so spremenjeni na podlagi uvodnih izjav (26) do (74), dokončno potrdijo.
For the purposes of this proceeding and in accordance with consistent practice, it was therefore considered that all types of the product concerned should be regarded as forming one single product.
Za namene tega postopka in v skladu z običajno prakso se zato šteje, da so vse vrste zadevnega izdelka en sam izdelek.
Following the provisional disclosure, interested parties claimed that the MET determination was made out of time, i.e. after the three-month period laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and that the investigation therefore should be terminated without delay.
Po začasnem razkritju so zainteresirane strani trdile, da je bila TGO določena prepozno, tj. po koncu trimesečnega obdobja iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, in da je treba preiskavo zato takoj zaključiti.
In this respect, these parties argued that the amendment of the basic Regulation [13] purportedly extending the deadline to make the MET determination to eight months only entered into force after the expiry of previously applicable three months deadline.
V zvezi s tem so navedene strani trdile, da je sprememba osnovne uredbe [13], ki naj bi podaljšala rok določitve TGO na osem mesecev, začela veljati šele po izteku trimesečnega roka, ki se je uporabljal pred tem.
The amendment would apply only to future investigations and to pending investigations where the deadline for making the MET determination had not yet lapsed at that time.
Sprememba naj bi veljala samo za prihodnje in tekoče preiskave, pri katerih se rok za določitev TGO takrat še ni iztekel.
However, Article 2 of the amendment of the basic Regulation clearly states that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012’.
Vendar pa člen 2 spremenjene osnovne uredbe jasno določa: „[t]a uredba se od 15. decembra 2012 uporablja za vse nove in vse tekoče preiskave“.
This Article, or indeed the whole Regulation, does not contain any reference to the restriction ‘where the deadline for making the MET determination had not yet lapsed’ claimed by the interested parties.
Ta člen ali celo celotna uredba ne vsebuje omejitve „pri katerih se rok za določitev TGO takrat še ni iztekel“, ki so jo navedle zainteresirane strani.
Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.
Zato te trditve ni mogoče sprejeti.
Following final disclosure, several interested parties re-iterated their argument that the MET determination was made out of time, without challenging the fact that the amendment of the basic Regulation referred to in recital (78) above applies to ‘all pending investigations’, which includes the present investigation.
Po dokončnem razkritju je več zainteresiranih strani ponovilo svojo trditev, da je bila TGO določena prepozno, pri tem pa niso izpodbijale dejstva, da se sprememba osnovne uredbe iz uvodne izjave (78) uporablja za „vse tekoče preiskave“, vključno s to preiskavo.
It is therefore finally concluded that the MET determination was not made out of time.
Zato se je dokončno sklenilo, da TGO ni bila določena prepozno.
Following final disclosure, one exporter claimed that MET should not have been denied because three companies which ceased operations during 2011 did not have one clear set of basic accounting records.
Po dokončnem razkritju je en izvoznik trdil, da se TGO ne bi smelo zavrniti, saj tri družbe, ki so leta 2011 prenehale poslovati, niso imele enega jasnega svežnja osnovnih računovodskih evidenc.
In particular, it was questioned pursuant to which accounting standard a company which ceased operations should nevertheless prepare such accounting records.
Zlasti je bilo izraženo vprašanje, po katerem računovodskem standardu bi morala družba, ki je prenehala poslovati, vseeno pripraviti take računovodske evidence.
In this respect it is noted that the accounting standards do not define which companies are required to prepare financial statements — accounting standards define how these statements have to be prepared.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da računovodski standardi ne določajo, katere družbe morajo pripraviti računovodske izkaze, temveč opredeljujejo, kako naj se ti računovodski izkazi pripravijo.
In the case of The PRC, it is the ‘Accounting Standard for Business Enterprises: Basic Standard’ which defines in its Article 4 that ‘an enterprise shall prepare financial reports’.
V primeru LRK je to „računovodski standard za gospodarske družbe: osnovni standard“, ki v členu 4 določa, da „družba pripravi finančna poročila“.
This is a mandatory obligation, and there is no exemption for companies which ceased operation.
To je obvezna zaveza, iz katere družbe, ki so prenehale poslovati, niso izvzete.
Following final disclosure, exporters also claimed that the benefits received from preferential tax regime(s) and grants do not represent a significant proportion of their turnover, which is allegedly confirmed by the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
Po dokončnem razkritju so izvozniki trdili tudi, da ugodnosti preferenčnih davčnih režimov in nepovratna sredstva ne pomenijo bistvenega dela njihovega prometa, kar naj bi potrjevala tudi vzporedna protisubvencijska preiskava.
In this respect, it is recalled that this argument was already addressed in recital (65) to the provisional Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba ponovno opozoriti, da je bila ta trditev obravnavana že v uvodni izjavi (65) začasne uredbe.
It was stressed that in particular due to the nature of this advantage, the absolute benefit received during the IP is irrelevant for assessing whether the distortion is ‘significant’.
Bilo je poudarjeno, da je zlasti zaradi značaja te prednosti absolutna ugodnost, prejeta v OP, nepomembna za ocenjevanje, ali je bilo izkrivljanje „bistveno“.
This claim is therefore rejected.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
In the absence of other comments regarding the Market Economy Treatment, all determinations in recitals (50) to (69) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi s tržnogospodarsko obravnavo, se vse ugotovitve v uvodnih izjavah (50) do (69) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
As indicated in recital (70) to the provisional Regulation, 18 cooperating exporting producers or groups of exporting producers not selected in the sample submitted claims for individual examination pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (70) začasne uredbe, je 18 sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ali skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki niso bili vključeni v vzorec, predložilo zahtevke za individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe.
In the present case, the sample already consisted of seven groups of companies, which typically consist of a number of exporting producers, related traders and related importers in the Union and third countries.
V tem primeru je vzorec že vključeval sedem skupin družb, ki jih običajno sestavlja več proizvajalcev izvoznikov, povezanih trgovcev in povezanih uvoznikov v Uniji ter v tretjih državah.
An individual examination of 18 additional (groups of) exporting producers, in addition to the seven groups of exporting producers included in the sample, would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time.
Individualna preiskava 18 dodatnih (skupin) proizvajalcev izvoznikov poleg sedmih skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključenih v vzorec, bi pomenila preveliko breme in bi onemogočila pravočasen zaključek preiskave.
In the absence of other comments regarding individual examination, all determinations in recitals (70) to (71) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z individualno preiskavo, se vse ugotovitve v uvodnih izjavah (70) do (71) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Interested parties noted that India is not a suitable analogue country due to local content provisions for projects of the ‘Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission’ (‘JNNSM’).
Zainteresirane strani so opozorile, da Indija ni ustrezna primerljiva država zaradi določb o lokalni vsebini za projekte v okviru pobude Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission („JNNSM“).
One party alleged that a 75 % local content is required, while another party alleged that Indian producers can charge higher prices for 100 % domestically produced modules.
Ena stran je trdila, da se zahteva 75 % lokalne vsebine, medtem ko je druga stran trdila, da lahko indijski proizvajalci zaračunajo višje cene za module, ki so v celoti proizvedeni v Indiji.
They further alleged that such requirements significantly increase prices of local products.
Nadalje sta trdili, da takšne zahteve znatno povečajo cene lokalnih izdelkov.
In support of this claim, an Indian press article was submitted [14].
V podporo tej trditvi je bil predložen članek iz indijskega časopisa [14].
However, this article was published almost one year after the end of the IP, and no proof for its impact during the IP has been provided.
Vendar je bil ta članek objavljen skoraj eno leto po koncu OP, poleg tega pa niso bili predloženi dokazi o njegovem učinku v OP.
However, the same press article reported that the Indian solar industry faces ‘stiff competition from western and Chinese manufacturers’.
Vendar je bilo v istem članku navedeno, da se indijska solarna industrija sooča s „hudo konkurenco zahodnih in kitajskih proizvajalcev“.
This is supported by the steady increase of imports into India, as stated in recital (92) below.
To je podprto z dejstvom, da se uvoz v Indijo postopoma povečuje, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (92).
While the local content requirements may indeed have a certain impact on the Indian domestic market, a clear conclusion can nevertheless be drawn that the Indian market is a competitive one, where numerous Indian and foreign companies effectively compete with each other.
Medtem ko je verjetno, da imajo zahteve po lokalni vsebini dejansko določen vpliv na indijski domači trg, se lahko kljub temu sklene, da je indijski trg, na katerem številne indijske in tuje družbe učinkovito tekmujejo med seboj, konkurenčen.
This shows that during the IP the importance of the JNNSM on total solar installations in India was below 5 % and therefore the impact of the JNNSM and its local content requirements, if they already existed during the IP, a fact that has not been established by the interested parties, was at best very limited.
To kaže, da je bil v OP pomen JNNSM pri skupnih solarnih napravah v Indiji manjši od 5 %, zato učinek JNNSM in njegovih zahtev po lokalni vsebini, če so že obstajale v OP, kar zainteresirane strani niso potrdile, zelo omejen, če je obstajal.
The majority of the installations during the IP were in the state of Gujarat (about 65 %), driven by state support policies.
Večina naprav v OP je bila v pokrajini Gujarat (približno 65 %), spodbujale pa so jih državne podporne politike.
However, this allegation is not supported by the development of imports of solar cells and modules reported by the Indian trade statistics [16]:
Vendar ta trditev ni podprta z razvojem uvoza solarnih celic in modulov, o katerem priča indijska trgovinska statistika [16]:
Values in million USD
Vrednost v milijonih USD
April 2010 — March 2011
April 2010–marec 2011
April 2011 — March 2012
April 2011–marec 2012
April 2012 — March 2013
April 2012–marec 2013
Following final disclosure, the Government of China argued that the USA have requested consultations with India under the WTO dispute settlement procedures concerning the local content requirements of the JNNSM on 6 February 2013.
Po dokončnem razkritju je kitajska vlada trdila, da so ZDA 6. februarja 2013 zahtevale posvetovanja z Indijo v okviru postopkov reševanja sporov STO glede zahtev po lokalni vsebini JNNSM.
The effect of these local content rules, in combination with the anti-dumping investigation mentioned in (91) above, allegedly led to a decrease of 38 % in value terms in April 2012 — March 2013 compared to the previous year, in contrast to the increase in previous years.
Ta pravila o lokalni vsebini naj bi skupaj s protidampinško preiskavo iz uvodne izjave (91) v obdobju od aprila 2012 do marca 2013 povzročila 38-odstotno zmanjšanje vrednosti v primerjavi s predhodnim letom, kar je v nasprotju z rastjo v prejšnjih letih.
In this respect, it is noted that the decrease in value terms is due to a decrease in prices rather than import volumes.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je zmanjšanje vrednosti posledica nižjih cen in ne obsega uvoza.
It is therefore concluded that the Indian market was not de facto protected due to a looming anti-dumping investigation, and the claimed, but not proven, in any event at the very best minor effects of the local content requirements under the JNNSM mentioned in recital (90) above did not prevent a steady increase in imports in terms of volume.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da indijski trg dejansko ni bil zaščiten zaradi prihajajoče protidampinške preiskave, zatrjevani, a nedokazani, in v vsakem primeru največ majhni učinki zahtev po lokalni vsebini v okviru JNNSM, omenjeni v uvodni izjavi (90), pa niso preprečili stalne rasti obsega uvoza.
In addition, it is pointed out that the period of April 2012 — March 2013 showing the alleged effects of the JNNSM on imports into India is predominantly after the IP.
Poleg tega je izpostavljeno, da je obdobje od aprila 2012 do marca 2013, ki naj bi kazalo učinke JNNSM na uvoz v Indijo, večinoma po OP.
Any possible impact of this alleged decrease on the IP can therefore only be minor.
Vsi morebitni učinki tega domnevnega zmanjšanja na OP so zato lahko le majhni.
One interested party alleged that Tata Power Solar (‘Tata’) only recently entered the market, and is therefore not a suitable analogue country producer.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da je družba Tata Power Solar („Tata“) šele pred kratkim vstopila na trg in zato ni ustrezen proizvajalec iz primerljive države.
In this respect, it is noted that the company, previously ‘Tata BP Solar’, is producing solar modules since 1989 and can therefore not be considered having entered the market only recently.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da družba, ki se je prej imenovala Tata BP Solar, proizvaja solarne module od leta 1989 in zato zanjo ne velja, da je na trg vstopila šele pred kratkim.
Indeed, according to information provided by another interested party, Tata entered the market significantly earlier than the five largest sampled Chinese exporters.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je predložila druga zainteresirana stran, je Tata vstopila na trg bistveno prej kot pet največjih vzorčenih kitajskih izvoznikov.
One interested party claimed that Taiwan would be a more suitable analogue country than India, since the size of the Taiwanese companies is more comparable to the size of the Chinese exporters, and there is also co-operation from Taiwanese producers.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da je Tajvan bolj primerna primerljiva država kot Indija, ker je velikost tajvanskih družb bolj primerljiva z velikostjo kitajskih izvoznikov in ker je bilo sodelovanje s tajvanskimi proizvajalci že vzpostavljeno.