natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, all sampled Union producers produce ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090.
V vsakem primeru vsi vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije proizvajajo amonijev nitrat, trenutno uvrščen pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
The solid fertilisers listed under the other CN codes are produced by the Union industry and are simply the result of additional chemical or blending activities to create compound fertilisers, also referred to as ‘stabilised fertilisers’ or ‘mixtures’, under the conditions that the nitrogen content exceeds 28 % by weight or the ammonium nitrate content exceeds 80 % by weight.
Trdna gnojila, uvrščena pod ostale oznake KN, proizvaja industrija Unije in so le rezultat dodatne kemijske obdelave ali mešanja za izdelavo sestavljenih gnojil, ki se imenujejo tudi „stabilizirana gnojila“ ali „mešanice“, pod pogojem da vsebnost dušika v teh gnojilih presega 28 mas. % ali vsebnost amonijevega nitrata presega 80 mas. %.
Therefore, the sample is representative of the Union industry.
Zato je vzorec reprezentativen za industrijo Unije.
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the notice of initiation.
Komisija je prosila nepovezane uvoznike, da predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o začetku, da bi se odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec.
No unrelated importer replied to the sampling form and no sampling was therefore necessary.
Ker noben nepovezani uvoznik ni odgovoril na obrazec za vzorčenje, vzorčenje ni bilo potrebno.
Sampling of exporting producers in Russia
Vzorčenje proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Rusiji
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in Russia to provide the information specified in the notice of initiation.
Komisija je prosila vse proizvajalce izvoznike v Rusiji, da predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o začetku, da bi se odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec.
In addition, the Commission asked the Permanent Mission of Russia to the Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
Poleg tega je Komisija pozvala Stalno predstavništvo Rusije pri Uniji, da določi preostale proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi jih zanimalo sodelovanje pri preiskavi, in/ali stopi v stik z njimi, če obstajajo.
Eight exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Osem proizvajalcev izvoznikov v zadevni državi je predložilo zahtevane informacije in se strinjalo z vključitvijo v vzorec.
During the RIP, imports into the Union were made mainly under the undertakings that had been accepted.
Med OPP je uvoz v Unijo potekal večinoma v okviru zavez, ki so bile sprejete.
In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of four exporting producers which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe izbrala vzorec štirih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
These producers had the largest volume of total exports sales.
Ti proizvajalci so imeli največji obseg celotnega izvoza.
They included the two companies that had export sales to the Union under the undertaking during the RIP.
Med njimi sta bili dve družbi, ki sta med OPP izvažali v Unijo v okviru zavez.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned, were consulted on the selection of the sample.
V skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe so bila opravljena posvetovanja z vsemi znanimi zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki in organi zadevne države o izbiri vzorca.
The Commission thus decided to retain the proposed sample and all interested parties were accordingly informed of the finally selected sample.
Komisija se je zato odločila, da bo obdržala predlagani vzorec, in tako vse zainteresirane strani ustrezno obvestila o končnem izbranem vzorcu.
The Commission selected the following four companies for the sample:
Komisija je za vzorec izbrala naslednje štiri družbe:
The sample represented 88 % of the total export sales from Russia in volume (to the Union and to third countries) during the RIP, based on the replies to the sampling forms.
Vzorec je na podlagi odgovorov na obrazec za vzorčenje predstavljal 88 % obsega celotnega izvoza iz Rusije (v Unijo in tretje države) med OPP.
The Commission sent questionnaires to all Russian exporting producers that had so requested, as well as to the sampled Union producers, users and trade associations that made themselves known within the time limits set out in the notice of initiation.
Komisija je poslala vprašalnike vsem ruskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so to zahtevali, ter vzorčenim proizvajalcem, uporabnikom in poklicnim združenjem Unije, ki so se javili v roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku.
Questionnaire replies were received from the four sampled Russian exporting producers and from the four sampled Union producers.
Izpolnjene vprašalnike so poslali štirje vzorčeni ruski proizvajalci izvozniki in štirje vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije.
One trade association representing users, namely the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales (NFU), provided a partial questionnaire reply.
Poklicno združenje Nacionalna kmečka zveza Anglije in Walesa (National Farmer's Union of England and Wales), ki je predstavljalo uporabnike, je poslalo delno izpolnjen vprašalnik.
As regards the Russian exporting producers, only Acron provided a complete questionnaire reply.
Od ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je le Acron poslal popolnoma izpolnjen vprašalnik.
The other three sampled companies — EuroChem, UralChem and SBU Azot — provided only partial replies, limiting themselves to data on capacity, aggregate sales figures at an ex-works level and certain information on their cost of production.
Preostale tri vzorčene družbe (EuroChem, UralChem in SBU Azot) so predložile le delno izpolnjene vprašalnike, pri čemer so se omejile na podatke o zmogljivosti, skupni prodaji na ravni franko tovarna in določene informacije o njihovih proizvodnih stroških.
These partial replies did not allow the Commission to fully verify their sales data as well as their cost of production.
Zaradi teh delnih odgovorov Komisija ni mogla v celoti preveriti njihovih podatkov o prodaji ter proizvodnih stroških.
The Commission informed the three sampled exporting producers concerned about its intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation regarding the information they failed to provide, and they have used their right to be heard by the Hearing Officer.
Komisija je tri zadevne vzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike obvestila, da namerava v zvezi z informacijami, ki jih niso predložile, uporabiti člen 18 osnovne uredbe, ti vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki pa so izkoristili pravico, da jih zasliši pooblaščenec za zaslišanje.
In addition, in the specific disclosures to each of the three sampled exporting producers concerned the Commission indicated which data provided by each company it had used in its analysis and which data it considered incomplete and had thus used facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je Komisija v specifičnih razkritjih vsakemu od treh vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov pojasnila, katere podatke, ki jih je predložila posamezna družba, je uporabila v svoji analizi in katere podatke je obravnavala za nepopolne ter tako uporabila dostopna dejstva v skladu s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe.
In particular, the Commission used aggregate sales figures at an ex-works level instead of detailed figures based on transaction-by-transaction listings.
Komisija je zlasti uporabila podatke o skupni prodaji na ravni franko tovarna namesto podrobnih podatkov na podlagi seznamov posamično navedenih transakcij.
Three individual importers indicated they had ceased all imports of fertilisers originating in Russia.
Komisija je zbrala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za ugotovitev dampinga, nastale škode in interesa Unije.
Written submissions were also received from several associations of users, notably the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the EU (COPA)/General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the EU (Cogeca), NFU, and from the French associations Afcome (Association Française de Commercialisation et de Mélange d'Engrais) and AGPB (Association Générale des Producteurs de Blé et Autres Céréales).
Preveritveni obiski v skladu s členom 16 osnovne uredbe so bili izvedeni v prostorih naslednjih družb:
The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, resulting injury and Union interest.
Proizvajalci Unije
Union producers
Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe „Puławy“ S.A, Poljska,
AB ‘Achema’, Jonolaukio k., Ruklos sen., Jonavos r., Lithuania,
Grow How UK limited, Ince, Združeno kraljestvo,
Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe ‘Puławy’ SA, Poland,
YARA France S.A., Francija.
Grow How UK limited, Ince, United Kingdom,
Proizvajalci izvozniki v Rusiji
Yara France SA, France.
JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh, povezani trgovec ZAO Agronova – Bryansk (Acron),
Exporting producers in Russia
Eurochem MMC OJSC, OJSC Nevinnomyssky Azot in OJSC Novomoskowskaya Joint-Stock Company Azot (EuroChem),
JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh, related trader ZAO Agronova — Bryansk (Acron),
OJSC UCC UralChem, Berezniki Azot in Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical works (UralChem),
Eurochem MMC OJSC, OJSC Nevinnomyssky Azot and OJSC Novomoskowskaya Joint-Stock Company Azot (EuroChem),
Kemerovo JSC „Azot“ in LLC „Angarsk Nitrogent Fertilizer Plant“ (SBU Azot).
OJSC UCC UralChem, Berezniki Azot and Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical works (UralChem),
Povezani uvoznik
Kemerovo JSC Azot and LLC Angarsk Nitrogent Fertiliser Plant (SBU Azot).
Agronova Europe AG, Švica (povezan z družbo Acron).
Related importer
Razkritje
Agronova Europe AG, Switzerland (related to Acron).
Komisija je 13. junija 2014 vsem zainteresiranim stranem razkrila bistvena dejstva in premisleke, na podlagi katerih je nameravala predlagati ohranitev veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov, ter pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe.
Disclosure
Komisija je proučila pripombe zainteresiranih strani in jih po potrebi upoštevala.
On 13 June 2014, the Commission disclosed to all interested parties the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to propose maintaining the anti-dumping measures in force and invited all interested parties to comment.
Po razkritju je združenje RFPA ponovno trdilo, da so med pregledom nastopile številne domnevne postopkovne nepravilnosti, in opozorilo na zavrnitev Komisije v zvezi z dostopom do prvotne različice zahtevka, ki ga je vložnik vložil 28. marca 2013, ter domnevno nepravočasno odobritvijo dostopa do spisa, ki ni zaupne narave.
The comments made by the interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate.
V zvezi z zahtevkom za dostop do prvotnega zahtevka za pregled so službe Komisije večkrat pisno in ustno pojasnile, tudi na srečanjih, ki jim je predsedoval pooblaščenec za zaslišanje, zakaj tega zahtevka niso mogle odobriti v okviru veljavnega pravnega okvira.
Following disclosure, RFPA repeated that a number of alleged procedural irregularities would have occurred during the review, and noted the Commission's refusal to grant access to the initial version of the request filed by the applicant on 28 March 2013 as well the allegedly untimely granting of access to the non-confidential file.
V zvezi z domnevno nepravočasno odobritvijo dostopa do spisa, ki ni zaupne narave, Komisija meni, da pravica do obrambe združenja RFPA ne bi bila ogrožena, tudi v primeru, če bi bila trditev upravičena.
As regards the request to access the initial request for the review, the Commission services explained several times in writing and orally, including in meetings chaired by the Hearing Officer, the reasons why this request could not be accepted under the applicable legal framework.
Komisija je združenju RFPA namreč pravočasno razkrila bistvena dejstva, na podlagi katerih je Komisija nameravala ohraniti ukrepe, in mu zagotovila dovolj časa za odgovor.
As regards the allegedly untimely granting of the access to the non-confidential file, the Commission considers that even if this claim would be warranted, RFPA's rights of defence were not affected.
Poleg tega je bil združenju RFPA pred tem razkritjem odobren dostop do celotnega spisa, ki ni zaupne narave.
First of all, the Commission disclosed to the RFPA in a timely manner the essential facts on the basis of which the Commission intended to continue the measures and gave RFPA sufficient time to react.
Združenje RFPA je trdilo tudi, da srečanja med službami Komisije in vložnikom maja in aprila 2014 niso bila zabeležena v spisu, ki ni zaupne narave, ter da omejenim podatkom, ki jih je vložnik predložil maja 2014, ni bil priložen ustrezen povzetek, ki ni zaupne narave, kar je „v nasprotju s standardno prakso“.
Secondly, prior to this disclosure, RFPA had been granted access to the entire non-confidential file.
Standardna praksa je, da zainteresirane strani, ki zahtevajo zaslišanje, ustno predstavijo svoja stališča in predložijo pisne pripombe.
RFPA also claimed that ‘contrary to standard practice’, meetings held between the Commission services and the applicant in May and in April 2014 were not recorded in the non-confidential file and that the limited data submitted by the applicant in May 2014 were not accompanied by an adequate non-confidential summary.
Različice teh pripomb, ki niso zaupne narave, se vložijo v spis, ki je vsem drugim zainteresiranim stranem na voljo za vpogled.
It is standard practice that interested parties requesting a hearing present their views orally and accompany them with written submissions.
V teh dokumentih so zabeležena srečanja in zaslišanje, ki so ga opravile službe Komisije.
The non-confidential versions of such submissions are inserted in the file open for inspection and made available to any other interested party.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena kot vsebinsko napačna.
These documents record the meetings and hearing held by the Commission services.
V zvezi z drugo trditvijo je bilo pojasnjeno, da različice omejenih podatkov, ki ni zaupne narave in je bila predložena maja 2014, ni bilo mogoče predložiti na drugačen način, ne da bi se razkrile poslovne skrivnosti proizvajalcev Unije.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed as factually incorrect.
Zato tudi te trditve ni mogoče sprejeti.
As regard the second claim, the non-confidential version of the limited data submitted in May 2014 could not be submitted in a different manner without disclosing business secrets of the Union producers.
ZADEVNI IZDELEK IN PODOBNI IZDELEK
Therefore, also this claim cannot be accepted.
Zadevni izdelek
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
Zadevni izdelek, ki se obravnava v tem pregledu, je enak izdelku, opredeljenem v Uredbi (ES) št. 661/2008, in sicer so to trdna gnojila z vsebnostjo amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, trenutno uvrščena pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059020 ter s poreklom iz Rusije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: „AN“ ali „zadevni izdelek“).
Product concerned
Vendar je v zvezi z AN, ki ga proizvaja JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo), zadevni izdelek v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 989/2009 le AN, trenutno uvrščen pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
The product concerned by this review is the same as the product defined in Regulation (EC) No 661/2008, i.e. solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020 and originating in Russia (hereinafter ‘AN’ or ‘the product concerned’).
Glavna surovina, ki se uporablja pri proizvodnji AN, je plin, ki predstavlja 70 % do 80 % celotnih proizvodnih stroškov.
However, with regard to AN produced by JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo) only AN currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 is the product concerned pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 989/2009.
Cilj razširitve obsega izdelka leta 2005 je bil vključiti tudi amonijev nitrat, ki so mu bila dodana fosforjeva in/ali kalijeva hranila, saj je bilo ugotovljeno, da so imele te mešanice praktično enake osnovne fizične in kemične lastnosti ter agronomske značilnosti.
The main raw material used in the production of AN is gas, which accounts for 70 % to 80 % of the total costs of production.
Treba je upoštevati, da oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090 („amonijev nitrat razen v vodni raztopini“ oziroma „mešanice amonijevega nitrata s kalcijevim karbonatom ali drugimi negnojilnimi anorganskimi snovmi z vsebnostjo dušika, ki presega 28 mas. %“) lahko vključujeta AN, ki se uporablja za industrijske namene (kot je proizvodnja eksploziva), in AN, ki se uporablja za kmetijske namene.
The product scope extension in 2005 aimed to cover also ammonium nitrate to which were added phosphorus and/or potassium nutrients, since it was found out that these mixtures had essentially the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same agronomic properties.
Obe vrsti imata enake tehnične in kemijske lastnosti, sta brez težav zamenljivi in se štejeta za zadevni izdelek.
It should be noted that the CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 (respectively, ‘ammonium nitrate other than in aqueous solutions’ and ‘mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium carbonate or other inorganic non-fertilising substances, with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 % by weight’) can include AN used for industrial purposes (such as the production of explosives) as well as AN used for agricultural purposes.
Po razkritju so predstavniki ruskih organov trdili, da je razširitev obsega izdelka iz leta 2005 neskladna s protidampinškim sporazumom STO, saj v zvezi z dodatnimi izdelki, ki so zajeti z razširitvijo iz leta 2005, damping, škoda in vzročna povezava ne bi bili ugotovljeni.
Both types have the same technical and chemical characteristics, can easily be interchangeable and are considered as the product concerned.
Trditev je neutemeljena iz razlogov, ki so bili že navedeni v uvodni izjavi 22, in zato zavrnjena.
Following disclosure, the representatives of the Russian authorities claimed that the product scope extension made in 2005 is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement because no determination of dumping, injury and causal link would have been made with respect to the additional products covered by the 2005 extension.
Podobni izdelek
This claim is unfounded for the reasons already mentioned in recital 22 and therefore rejected.
Kot v predhodnih preiskavah je bilo ugotovljeno, da ima AN, proizveden in prodan na domačem trgu v Rusiji, enake osnovne fizične in tehnične lastnosti in enako uporabnost kot AN, ki se iz Rusije uvaža v Unijo.
Like product
Zato sta ta dva izdelka za namene te preiskave podobna izdelka v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
As in the previous investigations, it was found that AN produced and sold on the domestic market in Russia and AN exported to the Union from Russia have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses.
AN, ki ga proizvaja industrija Unije, je v smislu fizičnih in tehničnih lastnosti podoben izdelek v primerjavi z AN, ki ga Rusija izvaža v Unijo.
Therefore, they are like products for the purposes of the present investigation within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
VERJETNOST NADALJEVANJA ALI PONOVITVE DAMPINGA
The AN produced by the Union industry is a like product as regards physical and technical characteristics to the AN exported to the Union by Russia.
Uvodne ugotovitve
LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING
V skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe je Komisija proučila, ali obstaja verjetnost, da bi iztek veljavnih ukrepov povzročil nadaljevanje ali ponovitev dampinga.
Preliminary remarks
Damping uvoza v OPP
In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 32, je le en vzorčen proizvajalec izvoznik (Acron) v celoti sodeloval pri preiskavi.
Dumping of imports during the RIP
Po drugi strani pa je Komisija leta 2008 sprejela ponudbo cenovne zaveze družbe Acron, ki je v OPP še veljala, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 3.
As indicated in recital 32, only one sampled exporting producer (Acron) fully cooperated in the investigation.
Zaradi obstoja cenovne zaveze so bile izvozne cene družbe Acron v OPP določene v okviru te cenovne zaveze, ki določa najmanjšo uvozno ceno.
However, as set out in recital 3, in 2008 the Commission accepted a price undertaking offer from Acron, which was still in force during the RIP.
Posledično se take izvozne cene niso štele za zanesljiv element pri ocenjevanju, ali obstaja verjetnost, da se bo v primeru izteka protidampinških ukrepov damping nadaljeval ali ponovil.
Due to the existence of the price undertaking Acron's export prices during the RIP were determined by that price undertaking which sets a minimum import price.
Po razkritju je združenje RFPA trdilo, da to pomeni, da je Komisija ugotovila, da dejanskega dampinga ni.
Consequently, such export prices were not considered as a reliable element in assessing whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.
To ne drži.
After disclosure, RFPA argued that this means that the Commission found that no actual dumping is taking place.
Ker vzorčeni ruski proizvajalci izvozniki, z izjemo družbe Acron, niso v celoti sodelovali, Komisija ni imela dovolj podatkov za izračun dampinga na podlagi podatkov družb.
This is not accurate.
Lahko bi izračunala damping za družbo Acron, vendar je Komisija menila, da njeni podatki niso bili zanesljivi za namen tega pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 52.
As the sampled Russian exporting producers, with the exception of Acron, did not fully cooperate, the Commission did not have sufficient data to carry out any dumping calculations on the basis of the companies' own data.
Družba Acron je trdila, da je trditev Komisije, da so njene dejanske cene za EU nezanesljive, ker obstaja cenovna zaveza, in da se zato ne morajo uporabiti za določitev izvozne cene, nezakonita.
For Acron it could have carried out a dumping calculation, but as explained in recital 52, the Commission considered that its data were not reliable for the purpose of this expiry review.
Vendar Komisija ni trdila tega.
Acron claimed that the argument of the Commission that its actual prices to the EU are unreliable because of the existence of the price undertaking, and therefore cannot be used to establish an export price, was unlawful.
Komisija ni trdila, da se izvozne cene kot take ne morejo uporabiti zaradi cenovne zaveze, temveč je sklenila, da se take izvozne cene štejejo za nezanesljiv element pri analizi verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga zaradi posebnih okoliščin v tej preiskavi.
However, this is not what the Commission argued.
Komisija ni mnenja, da so izvozne cene, ki temeljijo na cenovni zavezi, pomenljiv kazalnik pri analizi, kako bodo proizvajalci izvozniki ravnali v prihodnosti, ko bodo ukrepi in cenovne zaveze prenehali veljati.
The Commission did not claim that export prices could not as such be used because of the price undertaking, but concluded that such export prices were considered an unreliable element in the analysis of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the specific circumstances of this investigation.
Komisija v nasprotju s trditvami družbe Acron meni, da se izvozne cene te družbe za EU ne morejo obravnavati tako, kot da so posledica zgolj običajnih tržnih pogojev.