natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The GOC claimed that the statement of the Commission that the Law of the PRC on the Scientific and Technological Progress lists a number of measures for the support of strategic industries including the solar PV industry is not based on any facts and that this law does not mention the PV industry or strategic industries and there is no basis to claim that the product concerned is included in the scope of this law.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da se izjava Komisije, da zakon LRK o znanstvenem in tehnološkem napredku navaja seznam ukrepov za podporo strateškim industrijam, vključno s solarno fotonapetostno industrijo, ne opira na dejstva ter da ta zakon ne omenja fotonapetostne industrije ali strateških industrij, poleg tega pa na nobeni podlagi ne bi mogli trditi, da je zadevni izdelek vključen v področje uporabe tega zakona.
The basis for this statement are Articles 18 and 34 of this law.
Podlaga za to izjavo sta člena 18 in 34 tega zakona.
According to Article 18 the State shall encourage and give guidance to financial institutions on supporting the development of high and new technology industries.
V skladu s členom 18 država spodbuja in usmerja finančne institucije pri podpiranju razvoja visokotehnoloških industrij in industrij z novo tehnologijo.
According to Article 34 the Policy-oriented financial institutions shall offer special aid to enterprises' projects encouraged by the State.
V skladu s členom 34 politično usmerjene finančne institucije nudijo posebno pomoč podjetniškim projektom, ki jih spodbuja država.
The PV industry fall within the category of high and new technology industries and the also fall within the category of enterprises whose projects are encouraged by the State.
Fotonapetostna industrija sodi v kategorijo visokotehnoloških industrij in industrij z novo tehnologijo, te pa sodijo v kategorijo podjetij, katerih projekte spodbuja država.
Moreover Article 17 of the same law promises preferential tax policies to, amongst others, entities which are engaged in projects covered by national scientific and technological plans.
Poleg tega člen 17 istega zakona obljublja uporabo preferenčne davčne politike, med drugim za subjekte, ki izvajajo projekte v okviru nacionalnih znanstvenih in tehnoloških načrtov.
From the recital (401) above it is clear that the projects of companies in the PV industry fall within this scope.
Iz uvodne izjave (401) je razvidno, da projekti družb v fotonapetostnem sektorju sodijo v ta okvir.
In conclusion, there are at least three clear indications that the PV industry and companies producing and exporting product concerned are included in the scope of this law.
Torej obstajajo vsaj trije jasni znaki, da so fotonapetostna industrija ter družbe, ki proizvajajo in izvažajo zadevni izdelek, vključene v področje uporabe tega zakona.
The GOC also claimed that the Commission has considered plans, decisions and laws of the PRC as having the same legal effect and value and this is contrary to the principles of legal interpretation, the legislation law of China and the repeated arguments made by the GOC.
Kitajska vlada je prav tako trdila, da je Komisija menila, da imajo načrti, sklepi in zakoni LRK enak pravni učinek in vrednost, kar nasprotuje načelom pravne razlage, kitajski zakonodaji in argumentom, ki jih je večkrat navedla kitajska vlada.
According to the GOC the reference to the general 5 year plan and specific PV plan has no legal reference because no positive evidence that the plans are legally binding was provided.
Po mnenju kitajske vlade sklicevanje na splošen petletni načrt in poseben načrt za fotonapetostno industrijo nima pravne podlage, saj ni bilo zagotovljenega nobenega pozitivnega dokaza, da so načrti pravno zavezujoči.
This is not correct since the claim of the GOC that the plans are not binding is not supported by other evidence on the file.
To ne drži, saj trditev kitajske vlade, da načrti niso zavezujoči, ni podprta z drugimi dokazi v spisu.
To the contrary, the text of the Plan as submitted by the GOC in the questionnaire reply clearly states: ‘This plan was deliberated and approved by the National People's Congress, and it has the effect of law.’ [91] The GOC in its comments to the definitive disclosure stated: ‘According to the Legislation Law of China, the Constitution, laws, administrative legislation, local regulations, and rules are the legislation in China.’ Since the plan has an effect of law and the GOC confirmed that laws are the legislation in China the Commission arrived to the conclusion that the plan is indeed legally binding.
Nasprotno, besedilo načrta, ki ga je kitajska vlada predložila v izpolnjenem vprašalniku, jasno navaja: „Ta načrt je pretehtal in odobril Nacionalni ljudski kongres in ima pravni učinek“ [91]. Kitajska vlada je v pripombah k dokumentu o dokončnem razkritju navedla: „V skladu s kitajsko zakonodajo se ustava, zakoni, upravna zakonodaja, lokalni predpisi in pravila štejejo za kitajsko zakonodajo“. Ker ima načrt pravni učinek, kitajska vlada pa je potrdila, da se zakoni štejejo za kitajsko zakonodajo, je Komisija sklenila, da je načrt dejansko pravno zavezujoč.
According to the explanation of the GOC during the verification visit the sectoral and regional 5-year plans stem from the general plan 5 year plan, therefore the Commission had no basis to treat the sectoral PV five year plan (2011-2015) differently than the general 5 year Plan.
Kot je pojasnila kitajska vlada med preveritvenim obiskom, sektorski in regionalni petletni načrti izhajajo iz splošnega petletnega načrta, zato Komisija ni imela nobene podlage, na kateri bi lahko sektorski petletni načrt za fotonapetostno industrijo (2011–2015) obravnavala drugače kot splošni petletni načrt.
GOC cites the ‘guidelines issued by the Commission on reimbursement/refunds’ as an example of a similarly non-binding document in the EU context.
Kitajska vlada navaja „smernice za vračila, ki jih je izdala Komisija“, kot primer podobnega nezavezujočega dokumenta v okviru EU.
The Commission supposes that the GOC refers to the ‘Commission Notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties’ (OJ C 127 of 29.5.2002 p. 10).
Komisija domneva, da se kitajska vlada sklicuje na „Obvestilo Komisije o povračilu protidampinških dajatev“ (UL C 127, 29.5.2002, str. 10).
In fact, it is not accurate to characterise these guidelines as non-binding because they bind the Commission to the extent that they do not violate superior rules.
Dejansko ni prav, da se te smernice označijo za nezavezujoče, saj Komisijo zavezujejo, če ne pomenijo kršitve višjih pravil.
The Commission has determined that China's plans are legally binding.
Komisija je sklenila, da so kitajski načrti pravno zavezujoči.
However, even assuming hypothetically this was not the case, it is clear that the national, sectoral and regional plans, emanating as they do from the highest levels of government and setting out government policy with regard to economic and industrial development, would have a high probative value with regard to the de-facto mandatory nature of their stated objectives.
Tudi če bi hipotetično domnevali, da to ne drži, je jasno, da bi imeli nacionalni, sektorski in regionalni načrti, ker so bili sprejeti na najvišjih ravneh vlade in določajo vladno politiko na področju gospodarskega in industrijskega razvoja, veliko dokazno vrednost v povezavi z dejansko zavezujočo naravo zastavljenih ciljev.
It is equally clear that they could be invoked by the government to reprimand entities that were not implementing them correctly.
Prav tako je jasno, da bi jih lahko vlada uporabila za kaznovanje subjektov, ki teh načrtov niso ustrezno izvajali.
Therefore, they would still be highly relevant to determinations relating to government intervention in the economy and to the direction and control of certain industries.
Zato bi bili še vedno zelo pomembni za ugotovitve v zvezi s poseganjem vlade v gospodarstvo ter usmerjanjem in nadzorovanjem določenih industrij.
Comments of parties concerning preferential policy loans, other financing, guarantees in insurance
Pripombe strani v zvezi s preferenčnimi posojilnimi politikami, drugim financiranjem, jamstvi in zavarovanjem
The GOC claimed that its failure to provide responses to Appendix A should not lead to the application of facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da se zaradi tega, ker ni predložila odgovorov v Prilogi A, ne bi smela uporabiti razpoložljiva dejstva v skladu s členom 28 osnovne uredbe.
According to the GOC, if the Commission really intended to verify the allegations in the complaint that the Chinese state-owned banks are public bodies it would not have needed to load the questionnaires with requests for internal, sensitive, transaction-specific data concerning banks many of which were not in any way owned by the government.
Kitajska vlada meni, da Komisiji, če bi resnično želela preveriti trditve v pritožbi, da so kitajske državne banke javni organi, v vprašalnikih ne bi bilo treba zahtevati predložitve notranjih občutljivih podatkov, specifičnih za posamezen posel, v zvezi z bankami, med katerimi jih veliko ni bilo na noben način v lasti vlade.
In this regard the GOC referred to the information concerning individual loans provided by the bank to the sampled exporting producers.
To so po mnenju kitajske vlade informacije o posameznih posojilih, ki so jih banke odobrile vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
The purpose of the information requested in Appendix A was to verify whether the Chinese banks are public bodies and whether they are entrusted and directed by the government.
Namen informacij, zahtevanih v Prilogi A, je bil preveriti, ali so kitajske banke javni organi in ali jim je vlada zaupala naloge ali ukazala opravljanje določenih funkcij.
With the exception to the information on individual loans the GOC did not specify which other requested information it considered not to be relevant for that purpose.
Razen informacij o posameznih posojilih, kitajska vlada ni navedla, katere druge zahtevane informacije šteje za nepomembne za navedeni namen.
It is recalled that the questions in Appendix A sought information on the ownership of the banks, on the composition of the board of directors and board of shareholders, minutes of shareholders/directors meetings, links of the senior management to the state authorities, sectoral breakdown of the loans, lending policies and assessment of risk with respect to loans provided to the cooperating exporting producers.
Opozoriti je treba, da so vprašanja v Prilogi A zahtevala informacije o lastništvu bank, sestavi upravnega odbora in odbora delničarjev, zapisnikih sestankov delničarjev/direktorjev, povezanosti višjega vodstva z državnimi organi, razčlenitvi posojil po sektorjih, posojilnih politikah in oceni tveganja glede posojil, dodeljenih sodelujočim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
The GOC claimed that for the findings on public bodies such request was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ and the scope of requested information was too broad.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da je bila ta zahteva „nedvomno nerazumna“ za ugotovitve v zvezi z javnimi organi, obseg zahtevanih informacij pa preširok.
GOC also claimed that the ‘threshold’ determination whether the entity is or is not a public body must be made before such information was even requested.
Prav tako je kitajska vlada trdila, da bi bilo treba odločitev o „pragu“, ki določa, ali je določen subjekt javni organ ali ne, sprejeti, še preden bi se predložitev takih informacij sploh zahtevala.
In the view of high standards set by the WTO AB in DS 379 [92] all the requested information is necessary, including findings on the extent of government involvement in the financial system.
V skladu z visokimi standardi, ki jih je STO določila v poročilu PO v DS 379 [92], so potrebne vse zahtevane informacije, vključno z ugotovitvami o obsegu poseganja vlade v finančni sistem.
For instance, evidence that entities act in a non-commercial manner can be to show entrustment and direction, if combined with indications of government inference.
Na primer, dokazi, da subjekti ravnajo na nekomercialen način, lahko kažejo na zaupanje nalog in ukazovanje, če se upoštevajo skupaj z znaki, ki kažejo na poseganje vlade.
In any event, it should be noted that once co-operation from the sampled exporting producers was forthcoming, the Commission decided to limit the requested information on loans to these firms and did not draw any inferences from the GOC's failure to provide other information on individual loans which was originally requested.
V vsakem primeru bi bilo treba poudariti, da se je Komisija, takoj ko so bili vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki pripravljeni na sodelovanje, odločila, da omeji zahtevane informacije na posojila tem podjetjem in ni prišla do nobenih negativnih sklepov, ker kitajska vlada ni predložila drugih informacij o posameznih posojilih, ki so bile prvotno zahtevane.
However, all other requests for information remained relevant to the investigation.
Vse ostale zahtevane informacije pa so se še naprej obravnavale kot pomembne za preiskavo.
Concerning the claim of the GOC that it could not have provided some of the information on the Appendix A it is noted that the GOC has refused to provide the Appendices A in their totality with the exception of several banks.
V zvezi s trditvijo kitajske vlade, da ni mogla predložiti nekaterih informacij iz Priloge A, je treba poudariti, da kitajska vlada ni hotela v celoti predložiti informacij iz Priloge A, razen za nekatere banke.
Taking the above into account it was concluded that the GOC failed to provide the remainder of requested information within the reasonable period.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega je bilo ugotovljeno, da kitajska vlada ni zagotovila preostalih zahtevanih informacij v razumnem obdobju.
The GOC, invoking the WTO US-Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report (Para.99) [93], argues that it did not have the practical ability to provide the Commission's ‘unreasonable’ requests for information and that the Commission's failure to address this issue, and to link the various requests to the factual determinations to which they related, meant that the Commission has not acted in good faith.
Kitajska vlada na podlagi Poročila pritožbenega organa o vroče valjanem jeklu iz ZDA (odstavek 99) [93] trdi, da ni imela dejanske zmožnosti za izpolnitev „nerazumnih“ zahtev Komisije glede informacij in da Komisija ni obravnavala tega vprašanja ter ni povezala različnih zahtev z dejanskimi določitvami, na katere so se nanašale, kar naj bi pomenilo, da Komisija ni ravnala v dobri veri.
Although the case cited relates to cooperation by exporters in an anti-dumping case, the Commission accepts that, in the case of government questionnaires in CVD cases, there is a need to strike a balance between the information required and the practical ability of the respondent to comply.
Čeprav se navedeni primer nanaša na sodelovanje izvoznikov v protidampinškem primeru, se Komisija strinja, da je treba pri vprašalnikih za vlado v primerih izravnalnih dajatev vzpostaviti ravnovesje med zahtevanimi informacijami in dejansko zmožnostjo anketiranca, da jih zagotovi.
However, this balance must be struck in the context of all the facts.
Vendar je treba to ravnovesje vzpostaviti ob upoštevanju vseh dejstev.
Determinations with regard to the status of state-owned banks in China as public bodies had already been made in the Coated Fine Paper and Organic Coated Steel cases and in this case the complainant provided sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the state-owned banks remained public bodies.
Ugotovitve v zvezi s statusom državnih bank na Kitajskem kot javnih organov so bile v primerih premazanega finega papirja in jekla, prevlečenega z organskimi premazi, že sprejete, v tem primeru pa je pritožnik predložil zadostne dokaze prima facie, ki kažejo, da so državne banke ostale javni organi.
Therefore, the GOC should have expected a fact-intensive enquiry if it wished to rebut this allegation.
Zato bi morala kitajska vlada, če bi želela to trditev izpodbijati, pričakovati natančno preiskavo dejstev.
Unfortunately, the GOC continued to make claims e.g. that it had little or no information on the government ownership of banks (a highly relevant factor in the public body determination), that suggested that it was not acting to the best of its ability and refusing access to necessary information.
Žal je kitajska vlada še naprej trdila, da je imela na primer na voljo malo ali nobenih informacij o vladnem lastništvu v bankah (to je zelo pomemben dejavnik pri ugotavljanju, ali je določena banka javni organ), kar pomeni, da ni ravnala po najboljših močeh in je zavračala zagotovitev dostopa do potrebnih informacij.
This is one of the ‘limited circumstances’ where Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement can be applied (according to the WTO Panel Report [94]. In addition, while the Commission was aware that its requests for information were, of necessity, quite extensive, cooperation is a two-way process and the GOC's reaction was initially to simply demand explanations of which factual determinations the requests were tied to (something that cannot be determined in advance) rather than to propose ways in which the requests for information could be addressed in a reasonable manner.
To je eden od „omejenih primerov“, v katerih se lahko uporablja člen 12.7 Sporazuma SIU (v skladu s poročilom odbora STO [94]). Čeprav se je Komisija zavedala, da so bile njene zahteve glede potrebnih informacij precej obsežne, je treba poudariti, da je sodelovanje dvostranski proces in da je bil prvotni odziv kitajske vlade, da zgolj zahteva razlago o tem, s katerimi dejanskimi določitvami so bile povezane zahteve (tj. nekaj, kar ni mogoče določiti vnaprej), namesto da bi predlagala načine, kako bi lahko razumno izpolnila zahteve glede informacij.
Concerning the verification of the Bank of Shanghai the GOC claimed that the fact that the verification did not take place is not a sufficient reason to apply facts available and that in any event it is Commission's own fault that the verification did not take place.
V zvezi s preverjanjem Šanghajske banke je kitajska vlada trdila, da dejstvo, da preverjanje ni bilo izvedeno, ni zadosten razlog za uporabo razpoložljivih dejstev in da Komisija v vsakem primeru sama nosi krivdo, da preverjanje ni bilo izvedeno.
In reply the Commission notes that the factual situation in respect to the organisation of the verification visit of the Bank of Shanghai was described in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated in recitals (143) and (144) above).
Komisija v odgovoru poudarja, da je bil dejanski položaj v zvezi z organizacijo preveritvenega obiska v Šanghajski banki opisan v odstavkih 111 in 112 dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju (ponovljeno v uvodnih izjavah (143) in (144)).
There was no change in the factual situation concerning this verification and the Commission does not agree with the GOC's interpretation of these facts and maintains that it made its best efforts for the verification to take place but this was not possible because of the obstructions in the side of the GOC.
Dejanski položaj v zvezi s tem preverjanjem se ni spremenil, zato se Komisija ne strinja s tolmačenjem teh dejstev s strani kitajske vlade in trdi, da si je z vsemi močmi prizadevala, da bi bilo preverjanje izvedeno, vendar to ni bilo mogoče zaradi ovir s strani kitajske vlade.
The GOC invokes the WTO Panel Report [95], which concluded that the absence of an on-spot visit does not exhaust all possibilities of verifying documents.
Kitajska vlada se sklicuje na poročilo odbora STO [95], v katerem je bilo ugotovljeno, da neizvedba obiska na kraju samem ni zadosten razlog, da dokumentov ne bi bilo mogoče preveriti.
However, in the present investigation, the GOC only informed the Commission of the bank's availability for verification one working day before the verification of the GOC started (after the already extended deadline for such a confirmation), thus closing off any possibility of an on-spot visit because arrangements had been made and could not be changed.
Vendar je kitajska vlada v tej preiskavi obvestila Komisijo o razpoložljivosti banke za preverjanje zgolj en delovni dan pred začetkom preverjanja kitajske vlade (potem ko je rok za potrditev že potekel), kar je onemogočilo obisk na kraju samem, saj je bil urnik že pripravljen in ga ni bilo mogoče spremeniti.
In these circumstances it is concluded that the GOC did not act to the best of its ability and the Commission does not see any way in which the checks provided by an on-spot visit could have been replicated by any other means.
Glede na to je bilo ugotovljeno, da kitajska vlada ni ravnala po najboljših močeh, poleg tega pa Komisija ne vidi nobene druge možnosti, s katero bi lahko nadomestili preverjanje, ki ga zagotavlja obisk na kraju samem.
The GOC claimed that the Commission cannot disregard the information provided by the HuaXia Bank in regards of its ownership structure for the reason that it is not ‘ideal in all aspects’.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da Komisija ne more zavrniti informacij, ki jih je predložila banka HuaXia v zvezi z lastniško strukturo, ker naj ne bi bile „popolne v vseh pogledih“.
The Commission notes that the reason for not accepting this information was not that it was not ideal in all aspects.
Komisija poudarja, da teh informacij ni zavrnila zato, ker naj ne bi bile „popolne v vseh pogledih“.
As already explained in the recital (147) above, the HuaXia Bank did not disclose any information on the government ownership until the verification visit even though this was requested by the Commission already in the initial questionnaire.
Kot je že pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (147), banka HuaXia do preveritvenega obiska ni razkrila nobenih informacij o vladnem lastništvu, čeprav jih je Komisija zahtevala že v prvotnem vprašalniku.
After the Commission pointed out that the HuaXia Bank has some state-owned shareholders the bank submitted a sheet of paper with the information from unknown source and in addition this information was in discrepancy with other information on the file.
Ko je Komisija poudarila, da ima banka HuaXia nekaj delničarjev v državni lasti, je banka predložila list papirja z informacijami neznanega vira, poleg tega pa so te informacije nasprotovale drugim informacijam v spisu.
It was not possible to accept such information.
Teh informacij ni bilo mogoče sprejeti.
In respect of the HuaXia Bank's decision to provide only some of the creditworthiness assessments as described in recital (148) above the GOC claimed that the Commission received a reasonable explanation of why the other assesments could not be provided.
V zvezi z odločitvijo banke HuaXia, da predloži samo nekaj ocen kreditne sposobnosti, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (148), je kitajska vlada trdila, da je Komisija prejela razumno obrazložitev, zakaj drugih ocen ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti.
Since it was clearly stated in the pre-verification letter that such documents will be subject of the verification visit the explanation that the ‘two risk assessment reports were dealt with by other branches of the Bank and the responsible employees were unavailable at the moment’ was not satisfactory.
Ker je bilo v predpreveritvenemu pismu jasno navedeno, da bodo takšni dokumenti preverjeni v okviru preveritvenega obiska, obrazložitev, da „so dve poročili o oceni pripravile druge podružnice banke in odgovorni zaposleni niso bili na voljo“, ni zadovoljiva.
In addition, the GOC raises the argument, repeated elsewhere in its comments, that information could not be produced because of client confidentiality.
Poleg tega kitajska vlada trdi, kot je v svojih pripombah večkrat ponovila, da informacij ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti zaradi zaupnosti podatkov v zvezi s strankami.