natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following consultations on this issue and in view of the fact that biodiesel declared as for non-fuel use has the same physical properties as biodiesel for fuel use, it is not appropriate to allow End Use Relief for imports of PKE in the present case.
Na podlagi posvetovanj v zvezi s tem vprašanjem in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da ima biodizel, prijavljen za uporabo kot negorivo, enake fizikalne lastnosti kot biodizel, ki se uporablja kot gorivo, v tem primeru ni primerno dovoliti oprostitve carine za uvoz PKE zaradi posebne uporabe.
One German importer repeated their request for product exclusion and/or End Use Relief for a particular fatty acid methyl ester manufactured from palm kernel oil (PKE) which was destined for use other than fuel in the EU.
En nemški uvoznik je ponovil svojo zahtevo za izključitev izdelka in/ali uporabo oprostitve carine za določen metil ester maščobne kisline, na osnovi olja iz palmovih jeder (PKE), ki je bil namenjen za drugo uporabo in ne za uporabo kot gorivo v EU.
The comments made restated their position which had been rejected at provisional stage and no new evidence was provided that would change the conclusion that End Use Relief should not be granted and that PKE should remain within the product scope.
V danih pripombah je bilo ponovno poudarjeno stališče, ki je bilo zavrnjeno v začasni fazi, niso pa bili predloženi novi dokazi, ki bi spremenili sklep, v skladu s katerim oprostitev carine zaradi posebne uporabe ne bi smela biti odobrena, PKE pa bi moral ostati vključen v obseg izdelka.
One Indonesian exporting producer also referred to their claim for End Use Relief for fractionated methyl esters and requested End Use Relief for these imports for the manufacture of saturated fatty alcohol.
En indonezijski proizvajalec izvoznik se je skliceval tudi na svojo trditev o oprostitvi carine za frakcionirane metil estre zaradi posebne uporabe in je za ta uvoz za proizvodnjo nasičenih maščobnih alkoholov zahteval uporabo oprostitve carine zaradi posebne uporabe.
As set out above, all requests for End Use Relief have been denied and the arguments set out by this interested party did not change that conclusion.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so bile vse zahteve za oprostitev carine zaradi posebne uporabe zavrnjene, ta sklep pa zaradi argumentov, ki jih je navedla navedena zainteresirana stran, ni bil spremenjen.
In the absence of other comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, recitals 29 to 39 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom, se uvodne izjave 29 do 39 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Recitals 44 and 64 of the provisional Regulation explained that both the Argentine and the Indonesian biodiesel markets are heavily regulated by the State and thus domestic sales were not considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade.
V uvodnih izjavah 44 in 64 začasne uredbe je pojasnjeno, da argentinski in indonezijski trg biodizla močno ureja država, zaradi česar se ne šteje, da je domača prodaja v skladu z običajnim potekom trgovine.
As a consequence, the normal value of the like product had to be constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo treba normalno vrednost podobnega izdelka konstruirati v skladu s členom 2(3) in (6) osnovne uredbe.
That finding was not contested by any interested party and is therefore confirmed.
Tej ugotovitvi ni nasprotovala nobena zainteresirana stran, zato se potrdi.
For both Argentina and Indonesia the constructed normal value at provisional stage was calculated on the basis of the companies’ own actual (and recorded) production costs during the IP, selling, general and administrative expenses (‘SG&A’) incurred and a reasonable profit margin.
Konstruirana normalna vrednost v začasni fazi je bila tako za Argentino kot tudi za Indonezijo izračunana na podlagi lastnih dejanskih (in evidentiranih) proizvodnih stroškov družb v OP, nastalih prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroškov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: stroški PSU) ter razumne stopnje dobička družb.
Recitals 45 and 63 of the provisional Regulation noted in particular that the Commission would further examine the claim that the Differential Export Tax systems (‘DET’) in Argentina and Indonesia distort raw material prices and that, therefore, the recorded costs of production did not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of the product concerned.
V uvodnih izjavah 45 in 63 začasne uredbe je zlasti navedeno, da bo Komisija nadalje proučila trditev, da sistema diferenciranih izvoznih davkov v Argentini in Indoneziji izkrivljata cene surovin in da zato evidentirani proizvodni stroški ne izražajo ustrezno stroškov, povezanih s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka.
The further investigation has demonstrated that indeed the DET systems depressed the domestic prices of the main raw material input in both Argentina and Indonesia to an artificially low level, as explained below in recitals 35 onwards for Argentina and recital 66 for Indonesia and, as a consequence, affect the costs of the biodiesel producers in both countries concerned.
Pri nadaljnji preiskavi je bilo dokazano, da sta sistema diferenciranih izvoznih davkov dejansko umetno znižala domače cene vhodnih glavnih surovin v Argentini in Indoneziji, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 35 in naslednjih za Argentino ter uvodni izjavi 66 za Indonezijo, zaradi česar sta vplivala na stroške proizvajalcev biodizla v obeh zadevnih državah.
In view of this finding it is considered appropriate that this cost distortion of the main raw materials should be taken into account in establishing the normal values in both countries, given the particular market situation prevailing both in Argentina and Indonesia.
Na podlagi te ugotovitve se šteje za ustrezno, da je treba to izkrivljanje stroškov glavnih surovin upoštevati pri določanju normalnih vrednosti v obeh državah, glede na posebne tržne razmere, ki prevladujejo tako v Argentini kot tudi v Indoneziji.
The General Court has confirmed [4] that when the prices of raw materials are regulated in such a way that they are artificially low on the domestic market, it may be presumed that the cost of producing the product concerned is affected by a distortion.
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo [4], da je v primeru umetnega nižanja cen surovin na domačem trgu mogoče domnevati, da se stroški proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka izkrivljajo.
The General Court considered that under such circumstances, the Union institutions are entitled to conclude that one of the items in the records cannot be regarded as reasonable and that, consequently, such item can be adjusted.
Splošno sodišče meni, da lahko institucije Unije v takšnih okoliščinah upravičeno sklepajo, da ene od postavk v evidenci ni mogoče šteti za razumno in da se lahko ta postavka zato prilagodi.
The General Court also concluded that it is apparent from the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation that the records of the party concerned do not serve as a basis for calculating normal value if the costs associated with the production of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in those records.
Splošno sodišče je tudi sklenilo, da je iz prvega pododstavka člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe razvidno, da se računovodske evidence zadevne stranke ne upoštevajo kot osnova za izračun normalne vrednosti, če se proizvodni stroški proizvoda, ki se preiskuje, v teh evidencah ne odražajo razumno.
In that case, the second sentence of the first subparagraph provides that the costs are to be adjusted or established on the basis of sources of information other than those records.
V tem primeru drugi stavek prvega pododstavka določa, da je treba stroške prilagoditi ali določiti na podlagi drugih virov informacij in ne na podlagi teh evidenc.
That information may be taken from the costs incurred by other producers or exporters or, when that information is not available or cannot be used, any other reasonable source of information, including information from other representative markets.
Te informacije se lahko pridobijo iz informacij o stroških drugih proizvajalcev ali izvoznikov, če pa te informacije niso na voljo ali jih ni mogoče uporabiti, iz katerega koli drugega razumnega vira informacij, vključno z informacijami iz drugih reprezentativnih trgov.
In the provisional calculations, the actual domestic purchase price of soya beans and the actual booked cost for crude palm oil was used when computing the costs of production for respectively Argentine and Indonesian producing exporters.
Pri začasnih izračunih stroškov proizvodnje se je za argentinske proizvajalce izvoznike uporabila dejanska domača nakupna cena soje, za indonezijske proizvajalce izvoznike pa dejanski evidentirani stroški za surovo palmovo olje.
Given that certain costs of production, and namely the costs of the main raw material and (soybean oil and soya beans in Argentina and crude palm oil in Indonesia), were found to be distorted, they were established on the basis of reference prices published by the relevant authorities of the countries concerned.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da so nekateri stroški proizvodnje, zlasti stroški glavnih surovin (sojinega olja in soje v Argentini ter surovega palmovega olja v Indoneziji), izkrivljeni, so bili določeni na osnovi referenčnih cen, ki so jih objavili pristojni organi zadevnih držav.
Those prices reflect the level of international prices.
Te cene odražajo raven mednarodnih cen.
As mentioned above, the Commission has now reached the conclusion that the DET system in Argentina distorts the costs of production for biodiesel producers in that country.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Komisija sklenila, da sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov v Argentini izkrivlja stroške proizvodnje proizvajalcev biodizla v tej državi.
The investigation established that during the IP export taxes on raw material (35 % on soya beans and 32 % on soybean oil) were significantly higher than the export taxes on the finished product (nominal rate of 20 % on biodiesel, with an effective rate of 14,58 % taking into account a tax rebate).
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bili izvozni davki za surovine (35 % za sojo in 32 % za sojino olje) v OP bistveno višji od izvoznih davkov za končni izdelek (nominalna 20-odstotna davčna stopnja za biodizel z efektivno 14,58-odstotno davčno stopnjo ob upoštevanju vračila davka).
As a matter of fact, the difference between the export tax on soya beans and biodiesel was 20,42 percentage points, and between soya bean oil and biodiesel was 17,42 percentage points during the IP.
Pravzaprav sta se v OP izvozna davka za sojo in biodizel razlikovala za 20,42 odstotne točke, izvozna davka za sojino olje in biodizel pa za 17,42 odstotne točke.
To determine the level of the export tax for soya beans and soya bean oil, the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries publishes on a daily basis the FOB price for soya beans and soya bean oil — ‘the reference price’ [5].
Argentinsko ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, živinorejo in ribištvo za namene določitve stopnje izvozne dajatve za sojo in sojino olje vsak dan objavi ceno FOB soje in sojinega olja – v nadaljnjem besedilu: referenčna cena [5].
This reference price reflects the level of international prices [6] and is used to calculate the amount of the export tax to be paid to the tax authorities.
Ta referenčna cena izraža raven mednarodnih cen [6] in se uporablja za izračun zneska izvoznega davka, ki ga je treba plačati davčnim organom.
The domestic prices follow the trends of the international prices.
Domače cene sledijo gibanjem mednarodnih cen.
The investigation established that the difference between the international and the domestic price of soya beans and soya bean oil is the export tax on the product and other expenses incurred for exporting it.
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da se mednarodna in domača cena soje in sojinega olja razlikujeta v izvoznem davku za izdelek in drugih stroških, povezanih z izvozom.
The domestic reference prices of soya beans and soya bean oil are also published by the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture as the ‘FAS theoretical price’ [7].
Argentinsko Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo objavlja domače referenčne cene soje in sojinega olja tudi kot „teoretične cene FAS“ [7].
The producers of soya beans and soya bean oil therefore obtain the same net price no matter whether they sell for export or domestically.
Zato je neto cena proizvajalcev soje in sojinega olja enaka, ne glede na to, ali izdelek izvozijo ali prodajo na domačem trgu.
In conclusion, the domestic prices of the main raw material used by biodiesel producers in Argentina were found to be artificially lower than the international prices due to the distortion created by the Argentine export tax system and, consequently, the costs of the main raw material were not reasonably reflected in the records kept by the Argentinean producers under investigation in the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation as interpreted by the General Court as explained above.
Ugotovljeno je torej bilo, da so bile domače cene glavne surovine, ki jo uporabljajo proizvajalci biodizla v Argentini, umetno nižje od mednarodnih cen zaradi izkrivljanja, ki izhaja iz argentinskega sistema izvoznih davkov, zato stroški glavne surovine niso bili razumno izraženi v evidencah argentinskih proizvajalcev v preiskavi v smislu člena 2(5) osnovne uredbe, kakor ga razlaga Splošno sodišče, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj.
The Commission has therefore decided to revise recital 63 of the provisional Regulation and disregard the actual costs of soya beans (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 soya beans in the absence of such a distortion.
Komisija se je zato odločila revidirati uvodno izjavo 63 začasne uredbe, pri čemer bo zanemarila dejanske stroške soje (glavna surovina, 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 sojo, če ne bi bilo izkrivljanja.
In order to establish the cost at which companies concerned would have purchased the soya beans in the absence of such a distortion, the Commission took the average of the reference prices of soya beans published by the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture for export FOB Argentina during the IP [8].
Ceno, po kateri bi zadevne družbe kupile sojo, če ne bi bilo takšnega izkrivljanja, je Komisija določila na podlagi povprečja referenčnih cen soje, ki jih je argentinsko Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo objavilo za izvozne cene FOB v OP [8].
The association of Argentine exporting producers (CARBIO) and the Argentine authorities claimed that an adjustment to the costs borne by the companies under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation is only possible when the records, and not the costs incurred by the companies, do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product concerned.
Združenje argentinskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (CARBIO) in argentinski organi so zatrjevali, da je prilagoditev stroškov, ki jih imajo družbe v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe, mogoča le, če se stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo zadevnega izdelka, v evidencah, vendar pa ne v stroških, ki jih imajo družbe, ne odražajo ustrezno.
They stated that in practice the Commission added the export taxes to the price paid by the companies when purchasing soya beans, thus including in the costs of productions an item which is not associated with the production or sale of the product concerned.
Navajali so, da je Komisija v praksi dodala izvozne davke k ceni, ki so jo plačale družbe ob nakupu soje, s čimer je bila v stroške proizvodnje vključena postavka, ki ni povezana s proizvodnjo ali prodajo zadevnega izdelka.
They added that the General Court’s ruling ‘Acron’ quoted in the disclosure document [9] is based on a wrong interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), it is currently being appealed before the Court of Justice and in any event the factual considerations are different from those in the present case, since raw material prices in Argentina are not ‘regulated’ as it is the gas price in Russia and are not distorted but determined freely without any State intervention and therefore there is not a particular market situation in Argentina that would allow the Commission to apply Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Dodajajo, da sodba Splošnega sodišča v zadevi „Acron“, ki je navedena v dokumentu o razkritju [9], temelji na napačni razlagi člena 2.2.1.1 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO in je trenutno predmet pritožbe pred Sodiščem, ne glede na to pa se dejansko stanje v tej zadevi razlikuje, saj cene surovin v Argentini niso „regulirane“ kakor cene plina v Rusiji in niso izkrivljene, ampak so prosto določene brez državnega poseganja, zato v Argentini ni posebnih tržnih razmer, ki bi Komisiji omogočile, da uporabi člen 2(5) osnovne uredbe.
They declared that the DET system in Argentina is not inconsistent with any trade rules.
Izjavili so, da sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov v Argentini ni v nasprotju z nobenimi pravili trgovanja.
In addition, CARBIO claimed that, since export taxes were not taken into account when establishing the export price, the Commission did not make a fair comparison between constructed normal value (which takes into account export taxes) and export price (which does not take into account export taxes).
Poleg tega je CARBIO trdil, da Komisija ni opravila poštene primerjave med konstruirano normalno vrednostjo (ki vsebuje izvozne dajatve) ter izvozno ceno (ki ne vsebuje izvoznih dajatev), ker izvozni davki niso bili upoštevani pri določitvi izvozne cene.
Moreover, they claimed that by referring to the international prices of soya beans as established in the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) when constructing normal value, but disregarding the gains or losses linked to the hedging activities at the CBOT when establishing the export price (see below), again the Commission did not make a fair comparison between normal value and export price.
CARBIO je nadalje trdil, da Komisija prav tako ni opravila poštene primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno, ker se je pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti sklicevala na mednarodne cene soje, kakor jih določa čikaška trgovinska zbornica (CBOT), vendar pa pri določanju izvozne cene (glej spodaj) ni upoštevala dobička ali izgub, ki izhajajo iz zavarovanj čikaške trgovinske zbornice pred tveganji.
Furthermore CARBIO claimed that by mere replacing the costs recorded by the companies under investigation with an international price, the Commission did not take into account the natural competitive advantage of the Argentine producers.
CARBIO je še zatrjeval, da Komisija ni upoštevala naravne konkurenčne prednosti argentinskih proizvajalcev, ker je stroške, ki so jih evidentirale družbe v preiskavi, zgolj nadomestila z mednarodno ceno.
Finally, CARBIO complained that the Commission did not take into account the fact that in the absence of the DET in Argentina, the CBOT prices of soya beans would have been much lower.
Nazadnje se je CARBIO pritožil, da Komisija ni upoštevala dejstva, da bi bile cene čikaške trgovinske zbornice za sojo precej nižje, če v Argentini ne bi bilo sistema diferenciranih izvoznih davkov.
These claims must be rejected.
Te trditve je treba zato zavrniti.
Even if the facts of the ‘Acron’ case are not the same as the facts in the present case, the General Court has nevertheless established the principle of law that if the costs associated with the production of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in the records of the companies, they do not serve as a basis for calculating normal value.
Čeprav dejstva v zadevi „Acron“ niso enaka dejstvom v tej zadevi, je Splošno sodišče ne glede na to uvedlo pravno načelo, v skladu s katerim stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo izdelka v preiskavi, niso osnova za izračun normalne vrednosti, če se ne odražajo ustrezno v evidencah podjetij.
In the ‘Acron’ case the costs were not reasonably reflected in the records of the company concerned because the gas price was regulated.
V zadevi „Acron“ se stroški niso ustrezno odražali v evidencah zadevne družbe, ker je bila cena plina regulirana.
In the present case it was established that the costs associated with the production of the product concerned are not reasonably reflected in the records of the companies concerned as they are artificially low due to the distortion caused by the Argentine DET system.
V tej zadevi je bilo ugotovljeno, da se stroški, povezani s proizvodnjo zadevnega izdelka, niso ustrezno odražali v evidencah zadevnih družb, saj so umetno nizki zaradi izkrivljanja, ki ga povzroča argentinski sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov.
This holds true regardless of whether or not DET systems in general may be as such contrary to the WTO Agreement.
To velja ne glede na to, ali so sistemi diferenciranih izvoznih davkov kot taki na splošno v nasprotju s Sporazumom STO ali ne.
Furthermore, the Commission considers that the General Court based itself on a correct interpretation of the ADA.
Komisija poleg tega meni, da se je Splošno sodišče oprlo na pravilno razlago Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
In fact, in China — Broilers [10], the panel found that although Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA sets up a presumption that the books and records of the respondent shall normally be used to calculate the cost of production, the investigating authority retains the right to decline to use such books if it determines that they are either (i) inconsistent with GAAP or, (ii) do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration.
Pravzaprav je odbor v zadevi China – Broilers [10] ugotovil, da preiskovalni odbor ohrani pravico, na podlagi katere lahko zavrne uporabo računovodskih knjig, če ugotovi, da (i) niso skladne s splošno priznanimi računovodskimi načeli ali (ii) ne odražajo ustrezno stroškov, ki so povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo obravnavanega proizvoda, čeprav člen 2.2.1.1 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO uvaja predpostavko, v skladu s katero se računovodske knjige in evidence tožene stranke običajno uporabijo za izračun stroškov proizvodnje.
However, when making such a determination to derogate from the norm, the investigating authority must set forth its reasons for doing so.
Vendar pa mora preiskovalni organ navesti razloge, če na podlagi svoje ugotovitve odstopi od norme.
Consistent with this interpretation, in view of the distortion created by the DET system, which creates a particular market situation, the Commission replaced the costs recorded by the companies concerned for the purchase of the main raw material in Argentina with the price that would have been paid in the absence of the established distortion.
Komisija je nadomestila stroške za nakup glavnih surovin v Argentini, ki so jih evidentirale zadevne družbe, s ceno, ki bi jo te družbe plačale, če vzpostavljenega izkrivljanja ne bi bilo, kar je v skladu z navedeno razlago, pri čemer se upošteva izkrivljanje zaradi sistema diferenciranih izvoznih davkov, ki ustvarja posebne tržne razmere.
The fact that from a pure numerical point of view the result is similar does not mean that the methodology applied by the Commission consisted in simply adding the export taxes to the costs of the raw material.
V skladu z metodologijo, ki jo je uporabila Komisija, stroškom surovin niso bili zgolj dodani izvozni davki, čeprav je rezultat s povsem numeričnega vidika podoben.
International prices of commodities are set based on supply and demand and there is no evidence that the DET system in Argentina affects the CBOT prices.
Mednarodne cene blaga se določajo na podlagi povpraševanja in ponudbe, dokazov, da je sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov v Argentini vplival na cene čikaške trgovinske zbornice, ni.