natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The government of the PRC however did not accept the offer as they claimed to have been provided insufficient information in regard to these schemes.
Komisija je prejela zahtevek za začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov [5], omejenega na škodo, v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 („osnovna protidampinška uredba“).
Parallel request for a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures in force
Zahtevek je 28. oktobra 2013 vložilo združenje APFE v imenu proizvajalcev Unije, ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih izdelkov iz steklenih vlaken v Uniji.
The Commission received a request for the initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures in force [5], limited in scope to the examination of injury, pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the basic anti-dumping Regulation).
Komisija je ugotovila, da obstajajo zadostni dokazi za začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda, zato je 18. decembra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije („obvestilo o začetku protidampinškega delnega vmesnega pregleda“) [6], napovedala začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne protidampinške uredbe.
The request was lodged on 28 October 2013 also by the APFE, on behalf of Union producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain filament glass fibre products.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da so sedanji ukrepi, ki so bili uvedeni z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 248/2011, zanj nični in da bi bilo torej treba potekajočo preiskavo v zvezi pregledom zadevnih ukrepov, uvedenih z navedeno uredbo, zaključiti.
Having determined that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced, on 18 December 2013, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Notice of Initiation of the anti-dumping partial interim review) [6] the initiation of a partial interim review under Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.
Trdil je, da sedanji ukrepi kršijo Protidampinški sporazum STO, saj mu je bila zavrnjena individualna obravnava v skladu z določbami člena 9(5) osnovne protidampinške uredbe, ki so veljale ob njenem sprejetju.
One exporting producer claimed that existing measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 248/2011 are null and void as far as it is concerned and that the current review investigation concerning the existing measures imposed by that regulation should therefore be terminated.
Svojo trditev je podprl s sklicevanjem na poročilo pritožbenega organa STO z dne 28. julija 2011 v zadevi DS397 [7].
It argued that the existing measures are in breach of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement since this exporting producer was refused individual treatment under the provisions of Article 9(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation as they existed at the time of adoption of that regulation.
Po objavi poročila pritožbenega organa STO z dne 28. julija 2011 v zadevi DS397 je bil člen 9(5) osnovne protidampinške uredbe spremenjen [8].
In support of its claim it refers to the WTO Appellate Body Report of 28 July 2011 in case DS397 [7].
V tem obvestilu je bila posebej navedena Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 248/2011.
The amendment applies to all investigations initiated following its entry into force, which was 6 September 2012.
Veljavnost sedanjih ukrepov torej ni sporna, zato se trditev zavrne.
With regard to exporting producers subject to measures that were already in force before that date the Commission published a Notice on 23 March 2012 [9] inviting any exporting producer in non-market economy countries to request a review if they considered that the measures to which they are subject should be reviewed in the light of the Appellate Body Report mentioned above.
Obdobje preiskave in obravnavano obdobje, ki velja za obe preiskavi
The Implementing Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 was specifically mentioned in that Notice.
Preiskava subvencioniranja in škode je zajemala obdobje od 1. oktobra 2012 do 30. septembra 2013 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The Commission did not receive such request for a review from this exporting producer, nor did the exporting producer request an interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2010 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
Therefore the validity of the existing measures is not at stake and the claim is rejected.
Analizi škode, izvedeni v protisubvencijskem in protidampinškem delnem vmesnem pregledu, temeljita na isti opredelitvi industrije Unije, reprezentativnih proizvajalcih Unije in obdobjih preiskave ter sta privedli do enakih sklepov, razen če ni določeno drugače.
Investigation period and period considered applicable to both investigations
To se je štelo za primerno zaradi poenostavitve analize škode ter doseganja doslednih ugotovitev v obeh preiskavah.
The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Zato so bile pripombe glede vidikov škode, predložene v katerem koli od teh dveh postopkov, upoštevane v obeh preiskavah.
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2010 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered’).
Stranke, ki jih preiskava zadeva
The injury analyses performed in both the anti-subsidy and the anti-dumping partial interim review are based on the same definition of the Union industry, the same representative Union producers and the same investigation period and led to identical conclusions unless otherwise specified.
Komisija je v obeh obvestilih o začetku vse zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo, če so pripravljene sodelovati v preiskavi.
This was considered appropriate in order to streamline the injury analysis and to reach consistent findings in both investigations.
Poleg tega je Komisija pritožnika, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, znane proizvajalce izvoznike in organe v LRK, znane uvoznike, dobavitelje ter uporabnike, trgovce in združenja, za katera je znano, da jih to zadeva, posebej obvestila o začetku obeh preiskav in jih povabila k sodelovanju.
For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any one of these proceedings were taken into account in both investigations.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da predložijo pripombe glede začetka obeh preiskav in zaprosijo za zaslišanje pred Komisijo in/ali pooblaščencem za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
Parties concerned by the investigations
Vzorčenje
In both Notices of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in both investigations.
Komisija je v obeh obvestilih o začetku napovedala, da bo v skladu s členom 17 osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 27 osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe z izbiro vzorcev morda smiselno omejila število proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK, nepovezanih uvoznikov in proizvajalcev Unije, ki jih bo preiskala.
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the authorities of the PRC, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of both investigations and invited them to participate.
Vzorčenje proizvajalcev Unije, ki velja za obe preiskavi
Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of both investigations and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
Komisija je v obeh obvestilih o začetku navedla, da je začasno izbrala vzorec proizvajalcev Unije.
Sampling
Komisija je izbrala vzorec na podlagi proizvodnje podobnega izdelka v Uniji in obsega prodaje podobnega izdelka na trgu Unije v OP ter na podlagi geografske porazdelitve.
The Commission announced in both Notices of Initiation that it might limit to a reasonable number the exporting producers in the PRC, the unrelated importers and Union producers that would be investigated by selecting samples in accordance with Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 27 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
Ta vzorec je zajemal proizvodne obrate treh proizvajalcev Unije v Belgiji, Franciji in na Slovaškem [10], ki zajemajo približno 52 % celotne proizvodnje Unije in 49 % celotne prodaje na trgu Unije.
Sampling of Union producers applicable to both investigations
Vzorec se je zato štel za reprezentativnega za celotno industrijo Unije.
In both Notices of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers.
Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe v zvezi z začasnim vzorcem.
The Commission selected the sample on the basis of production in the Union and sales volumes on the Union market of the like product during the IP and geographical spread.
Med preiskavama je vlada LRK trdila, da je bila za proizvajalce Unije v prvotni protidampinški preiskavi brez razloga uporabljena drugačna metodologija vzorčenja kot v trenutnih preiskavah.
This sample consisted of manufacturing plants of three Union producers located in Belgium, France and Slovakia [10], representing around 52 % of the total Union production and 49 % of all sales on the Union market.
Vlada LRK je navedla, (i) da je Komisija izbrala vzorec že pred začetkom preiskav in je torej tudi pred začetkom preiskav določila, da je vzorec potreben, (ii) da so morale v prvotni preiskavi vse strani, ki so želele biti vključene v vzorec, Komisiji predložiti informacije v 15 dneh po začetku preiskave, medtem ko v trenutnih preiskavah proizvajalcem, ki so že vključeni v vzorec, tega ni treba storiti, (iii) da strani, ki so želele biti vključene v vzorec, v nobenem od obeh obvestil o začetku niso bile obveščene o tem, katere informacije morajo predložiti za vključitev v vzorec, in da niso bile zagotovljene nikakršne informacije v zvezi z obsegom proizvodnje in prodaje, ki ju predstavljajo vzorčeni proizvajalci, ter (iv) da uporabljeno merilo za izbor, v skladu s katerim „ta vzorec predstavlja največji reprezentativni obseg proizvajalcev, ki ga je mogoče v razpoložljivem času ustrezno preiskati“, ni bilo vključeno v člen 17 osnovne protidampinške uredbe, zato vzorec, izbran na podlagi tega merila, ni bil v skladu s to določbo.
Therefore, the sample was considered representative for the Union industry.
Komisija je v obeh obvestilih o začetku pojasnila, da se je zaradi velikega števila proizvajalcev Unije in dokončanja preiskav v določenih rokih odločila za vzorčenje, hkrati pa je predlagala tudi začasni vzorec.
The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.
Enako metodologijo, tj. vzorčenje, je uporabila tudi v predhodni preiskavi.
During the investigations, the government of the PRC alleged that a different sampling methodology for the Union producers was applied in the original anti-dumping investigation than the one in the current investigations without motivation.
Metodologija se zaradi uporabe začasnega vzorca ni spremenila, pač pa je tako zgolj postala učinkovitejša, saj je pridobila več časa, medtem ko so bile v celoti upoštevane tudi pravice do obrambe.
The government of the PRC stated (i) that the Commission had already selected a sample prior to the initiations, therefore, the Commission decided prior to the initiations that a sample was necessary, (ii) that in the original investigation all parties that wished to be included in the sample had to provide information to the Commission within 15 days from initiation, while in the present case, the producers already included in the sample are not required to do so, (iii) that parties that wished to be included in the sample were not provided in both Notices of Initiation with any information on what information they are required to provide in order to be included in the sample and that no information as regards the production and sales volume represented by the sampled producers had been provided, (iv) that the used selection criterion ‘this sample represents the largest representative volume of producers which can reasonably be investigated with the time available’ was not included in Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and a sample selected on this basis was not consistent with this provision.
Komisija je seveda omogočila, da se ji javijo tudi drugi proizvajalci Unije, ki menijo, da obstajajo razlogi za njihovo vključitev v vzorec, ali katere koli druge zainteresirane strani, ki bi želele predložiti kakršne koli drugi pomembne informacije v zvezi z vzorcem.
In both Notices of Initiation the Commission explained that in view of the large number of Union producers and in order to complete the investigations within the time limits, it resorted to sampling and a provisional sample was at the same time proposed.
V končnem vzorcu bi bilo treba upoštevati vse morebitne predložene pripombe.
The same methodology, i.e. the application of sampling, was used as in the previous investigation.
Ker v zvezi s predlaganim vzorcem ni bila predložena nobena pripomba, je bil začasni vzorec potrjen.
The use of a provisional sample did not change the methodology but merely allowed to be more efficient as it allowed gaining time while fully respecting the rights of defence.
Kar zadeva drugo trditev, so proizvajalci, ki so bili začasno izbrani za vzorec, izpolnili uveljavljeni obrazec z informacijami, ki jih je Komisija potrebovala za izbiro začasnega vzorca.
Indeed, the Commission gave opportunity to other Union producers who consider that there are reasons why they should be included in the sample to contact the Commission or to any other interested parties to submit any other relevant information with regard to the sample.
Obrazec in odgovori so na voljo za pregled v nezaupnem spisu.
The final sample should take into account all comments received, if any.
Kar zadeva tretjo trditev, so bile strani, ki so želele biti vključene, pozvane, naj to sporočijo Komisiji v 15 dneh od datuma objave obeh obvestil o začetku, imele pa so tudi možnost vpogleda v nezaupni spis, kjer so bili na voljo uveljavljeni obrazci.
As no comments were received on the proposed sample, the provisional sample was confirmed.
Na teh uveljavljenih obrazcih so bile navedene informacije o obsegu proizvodnje in prodaje.
As to the second claim, the producers who were provisionally selected for the sample had filled in the standing form which included the necessary information for the Commission to select a provisional sample.
Tudi četrta trditev je neutemeljena, saj je v členu 17(1) osnovne protidampinške uredbe jasno naveden največji reprezentativni obseg, ki ga je mogoče v razpoložljivem času ustrezno preiskati.
The standing form and the replies have been available for inspection in the non-confidential file.
Vlada LRK je po dokončnem razkritju ponovila svoje trditve v zvezi z domnevno postopkovno neskladnostjo pri izbiri vzorca proizvajalcev Unije pred začetkom obeh preiskav in poudarila:
As to the third claim, parties that wished to be included were invited to contact the Commission within 15 days of the date of the publication of both Notices of Initiation and they had the opportunity to consult the non-confidential file where the standing forms could be found.
da je utemeljitev Komisije glede izpolnjevanja rokov preiskav nesprejemljiva, saj člen 17(2) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in člen 27(2) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe jasno predvidevata vzorčenje po začetku obeh preiskav in v skladu s pripombami, predloženimi v treh tednih po začetku obeh preiskav, ii) da je začasni vzorec diskriminatoren ali neobjektiven in bi druge proizvajalce Unije odvrnil od tega, da bi se javili, ter iii) da Komisija drugim proizvajalcem Unije ni dala na voljo treh tednov časa, da bi se javili.
These standing forms contained information on production and sales volume.
V členu 17(2) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členu 27(2) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe je navedeno, da „je dana prednost izbiranju vzorca ob hkratnem posvetovanju z zadevnimi strankami oz. njihovem soglašanju, pod pogojem, da se te stranke javijo in dostavijo dovolj informacij v treh tednih po začetku preiskave“.
The fourth claim is also unfounded because Article 17(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation clearly refers to the largest representative volume which can reasonably be investigated within the time available.
V zvezi s prvo trditvijo osnovna protidampinška uredba in osnovna protisubvencijska uredba Komisiji ne preprečujeta, da bi ob začetku preiskave predlagala začasni vzorec, v zvezi s katerim lahko strani predložijo svoje pripombe.
Following the definitive disclosure, the government of the PRC reiterated its claims as to the alleged procedural inconsistency in the selection of the Union producers' sample prior to both initiations and highlighted that:
Glede na to, da se proizvajalci Unije (ali vsaj večina izmed njih) strinjajo s pritožbo, in ob upoštevanju informacij, pridobljenih z uveljavljenimi obrazci, je imela Komisija na voljo potrebne informacije o industriji Unije, da je lahko v začetni fazi izbrala začasni vzorec.
the Commission's justification of meeting the investigation deadlines is unsustainable since Article 17(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 27(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation clearly envisage sampling after both initiations and pursuant to comments within three weeks of both initiations, (ii) a provisional sample is discriminatory or un-objective and would have worked as a demotivating factor for the other Union producers to come forward, and (iii) the Commission's failure to provide the other Union producers three weeks to come forward.
Zaradi teh informacij se postopek vzorčenja proizvajalcev Unije razlikuje od postopka, uporabljenega pri proizvajalcih izvoznikih.
Article 17(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 27(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation state that ‘preference shall be given to choosing a sample in consultation with, and with the consent of, the parties concerned, provided such parties make themselves known and make sufficient information available, within three weeks of initiation of the investigation’.
V zvezi z drugo in tretjo trditvijo je bilo v obvestilih o začetku navedeno, da morajo proizvajalci Unije, ki menijo, da bi morali biti vključeni v vzorec, to Komisiji sporočiti v 15 dneh.
As to the first claim, the basic anti-dumping Regulation and basic anti-subsidy Regulation do not prevent the Commission from suggesting at the time of initiation a provisional sample on which the parties are invited to comment.
Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi to kršilo osnovno uredbo ali se štelo za diskriminatorno, neobjektivno ali celo odvračajoče.
Moreover, given that the Union producers (or at least a large part of them) are supporting the complaint and taking into account the information obtained in the standing forms, the Commission had the necessary information with regard to the Union industry at its disposal to select a provisional sample at initiation stage.
Vlada LRK je trdila, da vzorec ni reprezentativen, ker vanj ni bila vključena nobena družba s precejšnjo proizvodnjo za lastno uporabo in torej del domače industrije preprosto ni bil ocenjen.
This knowledge makes the sampling exercise of Union producers different from the one applied to exporting producers.
Ta trditev se zavrne, saj so vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije imeli prodajo za lastno uporabo.
As to the second and third claim, the Notices of Initiation stated that Union producers who consider that they should be included in the sample must contact the Commission within 15 days.
Poleg tega vlada LRK ni navedla, katerega proizvajalca Unije bi bilo treba vključiti in katerega izključiti.
The Commission does not see how this infringes the basic Regulation or can be considered discriminatory, un-objective, let alone demotivating.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da vzorec proizvajalcev Unije ni reprezentativen, ker noben vzorčeni proizvajalec Unije ni izdeloval/prodajal rogoznic iz rezanih niti.
The government of the PRC claimed that the sample is not representative because no company with significant captive production had been included and therefore a part of the domestic industry had simply not been assessed.
Vzorčeni subjekti treh proizvajalcev Unije res niso izdelovali rogoznic iz rezanih niti, izdelovali pa rogoznice iz filamentov in druge glavne vrste izdelkov.
This claim is rejected as the sampled Union producers indeed had captive sales.
Vzorčeni subjekti so se zato šteli za reprezentativne, tudi zato, ker so predstavljali 52 % celotne proizvodnje v Uniji in 49 % celotne prodaje na trgu Unije ter je bila z njimi dosežena dobra geografska porazdelitev.
Moreover, the government of the PRC did not indicate which Union producer should have been included and which one should have been excluded.
Dejstvo, da vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije niso izdelovali ene od številnih vrst izdelkov, ne spremeni te sklepne ugotovitve.
One exporting producer claimed that the Union producers' sample was not representative as none of the sampled Union producers produced/sold chopped strand mats.
Vzorčenje uvoznikov, ki velja za obe preiskavi
Indeed, the sampled entities of the three Union producers did not produce chopped strand mats but they did produce filament mats as well as the other main product types.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec, je nepovezane uvoznike pozvala, naj predložijo informacije, določene v obeh obvestilih o začetku.
Therefore, the sampled entities were considered to be representative, also because they represented around 52 % of the total Union production, 49 % of all sales on the Union market, and represented a good geographical spread.
Ker sta obrazec za vzorčenje izpolnila samo dva nepovezana uvoznika, vzorčenje ni bilo potrebno.
The fact that one of the wide varieties of product types was not produced by the sampled Union producers does not alter this conclusion.
Vzorčenje proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK, ki velja za obe preiskavi
Sampling of importers applicable to both investigations
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec, je proizvajalce izvoznike iz LRK pozvala, naj predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilih o začetku.
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in both Notices of Initiation.
Poleg tega je Komisija prosila stalno predstavništvo LRK pri Uniji, naj navede in/ali obvesti morebitne druge proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi bili lahko zainteresirani za sodelovanje v preiskavi.
Given that only two unrelated importers replied to the sampling form, no sampling was necessary.
Osem proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz zadevne države je zagotovilo zahtevane informacije in se strinjalo z vključitvijo v vzorec.
Sampling of exporting producers in the PRC applicable to both investigations
Komisija je v skladu s členom 27(1) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe in členom 17(1) osnovne protidampinške uredbe izbrala vzorec treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza, ki ga je bilo mogoče v razpoložljivem času ustrezno preiskati.
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notices of Initiation.
V skladu s členom 27(2) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe in členom 17(2) osnovne protidampinške uredbe je Komisija pozvala vse znane zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike in organe zadevne države, naj predložijo pripombe o začasno izbranem vzorcu.
In addition, the Commission asked the Permanent Mission of the PRC to the Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
Prejela ni nobenih pripomb.