natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, all the sales to the independent customer concerned were taken into account for the determination of the export price.
Vendar je bil ves izvoz zadevni neodvisni stranki upoštevan pri določitvi izvozne cene.
Any subsequent transaction from this independent customer have to be disregarded because first they are not export sales within the meaning of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation and second, there is a risk of double counting of these sales.
Vse naknadne transakcije od te neodvisne stranke je treba prezreti, saj ne pomenijo izvoza v smislu člena 2(8) in (9) osnovne uredbe, poleg tega pa obstaja tveganje dvojnega štetja te prodaje.
On this basis, the exporting producer's claim was rejected.
Na tej podlagi so bile trditve proizvajalca izvoznika zavrnjene.
In the absence of any other comments regarding the determination of the export price, the conclusions reached in recitals 32 to 38 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih drugih pripomb v zvezi z določitvijo izvozne cene, se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 32 do 38 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
After provisional disclosure, the two cooperating exporting producers contested that the costs incurred to move the goods from the factory to the warehouse be considered as internal logistic costs thereby not affecting price comparability.
Po začasnem razkritju sta sodelujoča proizvajalca izvoznika oporekala, da je treba stroške prevoza blaga od tovarne do skladišča šteti kot notranje logistične stroške, ki torej niso vplivali na primerljivost cen.
One of the exporting producers had several distribution warehouses on the domestic market from which MSG was shipped to the final customers.
Eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov je imel več distribucijskih skladišč na domačem trgu, iz katerih je bil MNG razposlan h končnim strankam.
This exporting producer claimed that transport cost from the factory to the warehouses should be considered as domestic freight cost and be deducted from the normal value as no such costs incurred on export sales.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da bi bilo treba stroške prevoza od tovarne do skladišča šteti kot stroške domačega prevoza in jih odšteti od normalne vrednosti, saj pri izvozu tovrstni stroški niso nastali.
The other exporting producer claimed that in some cases the cost to move goods to the warehouse could be linked to a specific invoice and therefore is a direct selling expense and this cost is included in the price charged to the customers, affecting price comparability.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da bi bilo mogoče v nekaterih primerih strošek prevoza blaga do skladišča povezati s posameznim računom, zato gre za neposredni strošek prodaje in ta strošek je vključen v ceno, ki se zaračuna strankam, torej vpliva na primerljivost cen.
It should therefore be deducted from the normal value.
Zato bi jih ga bilo treba odšteti od normalne vrednosti.
Warehouses are considered to be part of the premises of an exporting producer and only from the moment a product is in the warehouse it is ready to be sold.
Skladišča se štejejo kot del poslovnih prostorov proizvajalca izvoznika in izdelek je pripravljen za prodajo šele, ko je v skladišču.
The distance of the warehouse from the factory is irrelevant, as well as the fact whether the transport from the factory to the warehouse can be linked to a specific domestic sales transaction as these are costs typically incurred prior to the sale and therefore not a direct selling expense having an effect on price comparability.
Razdalja med skladiščem in tovarno pri tem ni pomembna, prav tako pa ni pomembno dejstvo, ali je mogoče prevoz od tovarne do skladišča povezati s posameznim prodajnim poslom na domačem trgu, saj ti stroški navadno nastanejo še pred prodajo in zato niso neposredni stroški prodaje, ki bi vplivali na primerljivost cen.
Therefore, based on Article 2(10)(e) of the basic Regulation the claims in this regard should be rejected.
Zato bi bilo treba na podlagi člena 2(10)(e) osnovne uredbe trditve v zvezi s tem zavrniti.
After provisional disclosure, the cooperating exporting producer who exported MSG via a related company located outside the Union claimed that its export should not be adjusted under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, as the related company outside the Union did not act as an agent and did not work on a commission basis.
Po začasnem razkritju je sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je MNG izvažal prek povezane družbe zunaj Unije, trdil, da se njegov izvoz ne bi smel prilagoditi na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, saj povezana družba zunaj Unije ni delovala v vlogi zastopnika in ni delala na podlagi provizije.
The exporting producer further claimed that the mark-up for the related company in question, which served as the basis for the adjustment made, does not affect price comparability because when constructing the export price, the Commission already deducted a reasonable profit margin at the level of the related company in the Union which would cover all profit margins relating to all inter-company transactions.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je nadalje trdil, da pribitek za zadevno povezano družbo, ki je bil osnova za izvedeno prilagoditev, ne vpliva na primerljivost cen, ker je Komisija pri konstruiranju izvozne cene že odštela razumno stopnjo dobička na ravni povezane družbe v Uniji, kar bi zajelo vse stopnje dobička, povezane z vsemi transakcijami med družbami.
The exporting producer claimed further that if anything, only the SG&A costs of the related company outside the Union should be deducted from the constructed export price.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je nadalje trdil, da če bi se naj sploh kaj odštelo od konstruirane izvozne cene, potem so to le prodajni, splošni in upravni stroški povezane družbe zunaj Unije.
The investigation established that the related company located outside the Union kept a mark-up for every export sale to the Union.
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da je povezana družba zunaj Unije določila pribitek za vsak izvoz v Unijo.
The mark-up affected price comparability, as it was only kept on export sales and not on sales in the domestic market.
Pribitek je vplival na primerljivost cen, saj je bil določen le za izvoz, ne pa tudi za prodajo na domačem trgu.
The claim that the profit margin of the related company was already accounted for when constructing the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation could not be accepted.
Trditve, da je bila stopnja dobička povezane družbe že upoštevana pri konstruiranju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe, ni bilo mogoče sprejeti.
This is because adjustments under Article 2(9) and Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation have different objectives, are separate and distinct from each other and governed by different substantive rules.
To pa zato, ker imajo prilagoditve na podlagi člena 2(9) in (10) osnovne uredbe različne namene, so med sabo ločene in se razlikujejo ter jih urejajo različna pravila materialnega prava.
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation aims to establish a reliable export price while Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation aims to ensure comparability of the export price and the normal value.
Člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe je namenjen določitvi zanesljive izvozne cene, medtem ko je člen 2(10) osnovne uredbe namenjen zagotovitvi primerljivosti izvozne cene in normalne vrednosti.
Once the export price has been duly established pursuant to paragraphs (8) or (9) of Article 2 of the basic Regulation, any further adjustments under its Article 2(10) no longer concern the export price as such and are in no way meant to determine the normal value and export price as such.
Ko je izvozna cena ustrezno določena na podlagi člena 2(8) in (9) osnovne uredbe, se nadaljnje prilagoditve na podlagi člena 2(10) navedene uredbe ne nanašajo več na izvozno ceno kot tako in nikakor niso namenjene določitvi normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene kot takih.
Therefore, the cooperating exporting producer overlooks the purpose of the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, which is to render the price comparable to the normal value and to not determine the export price as such.
Zato je sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik narobe razumel namen prilagoditve na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, tj. napraviti ceno primerljivo z normalno vrednostjo, ne pa določiti izvozno ceno kot tako.
Therefore, the reasonable profit margin deducted under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation does not cover any possible mark-up realised in the same sales channel.
Razumna stopnja dobička, odšteta na podlagi člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe, torej ne pokriva morebitnih pribitkov, ki se prištejejo na isti prodajni poti.
As regards the amount to be adjusted, the adjustment made reflects the mark-up actually charged between the related companies and thus actually affecting prices and price comparability.
Kar zadeva znesek, ki ga je treba prilagoditi, izvedena prilagoditev odraža pribitek, ki se je dejansko zaračunal med povezanimi družbami in je torej dejansko vplival na cene in primerljivost cen.
There is thus no reason to replace it with another theoretical amount.
Zato ga ni upravičeno nadomestiti z drugim teoretičnim zneskom.
Finally, the Commission is entitled to have regard to the fact that the related company located outside the Union is receiving payment (in the form of the mark-up retained by the related company on sales which it invoices to customers in the Union).
Nenazadnje ima Komisija pravico, da upošteva dejstvo, da nepovezana družba zunaj Unije prejema plačilo (v obliki pribitka, ki ga povezana družba zadrži od prodaje, ki jo zaračuna strankam v Uniji).
For the related company to qualify as a firm subject to corporate tax in the country located outside the Union (which has a considerably lower corporate tax rate than in Indonesia) on those payments, it must be carrying out a genuine economic activity there.
Da bi se povezana družba štela za družbo, zavezano k plačilu davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v državi zunaj Unije (v kateri je davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb znatno nižji kot v Indoneziji) za navedena plačila, mora v tej državi izvajati resnično gospodarsko dejavnost.
As such, the Indonesian exporting producer cannot simultaneously seek to ensure the favourable fiscal treatment it obtains from the presence of the related company in the country outside the Union and the latter's economic activity in that jurisdiction while simultaneously contending in the context of anti-dumping proceedings that the related company carries out no economic activities.
Kot tak si indonezijski proizvajalec izvoznik ne more hkrati prizadevati za zagotovitev ugodne davčne obravnave, ki jo uživa zaradi prisotnosti povezane družbe v državi zunaj Unije ter gospodarske dejavnosti slednje v navedeni državi, in v okviru protidampinškega postopka trditi, da povezana družba ne izvaja gospodarske dejavnosti.
Therefore, these claims should be rejected.
Zato bi bilo treba te trditve zavrniti.
After final disclosure, the exporting producer reiterated its claims regarding the mark-up adjustment of its related company and contested that tax considerations should be placed in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.
Po dokončnem razkritju je proizvajalec izvoznik ponovil svoje trditve v zvezi s prilagoditvijo za pribitek za njegovo povezano družbo in je oporekal, da bi bilo treba pomisleke glede obdavčitve obravnavati v okviru protidampinške preiskave.
The exporting producer further claimed that while it does not contest that its related company had commercial activities in the third country concerned, these were limited regarding the product concerned.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil tudi, da čeprav ne oporeka, da je njegova povezana družba opravljala komercialne dejavnosti v zadevni tretji državi, so bile te dejavnosti za zadevni izdelek omejene.
Moreover, it was reiterated that the related company's activities were clearly different from those of an agent and did not receive any commission from the exporting producer regarding the sales to the Union.
Poleg tega je bilo ponovljeno, da so bile dejavnosti povezane družbe očitno različne od dejavnosti zastopnika in da družba od proizvajalca izvoznika ni prejela provizije za prodajo v Unijo.
Finally, the exporting producer reiterated that when constructing the export price, the Commission already deducted a reasonable profit margin at the level of the related company in the Union which would cover all profit margins relating to all inter-company transactions.
Končno je proizvajalec izvoznik ponovil svojo trditev, da je Komisija pri konstruiranju izvozne cene že odštela razumno stopnjo dobička na ravni povezane družbe v Uniji, ki bi zajemala vse stopnje dobička, povezane z vsemi transakcijami znotraj družbe.
In this regard, the exporting producer alleged that in case of successive sales between related companies, it would be indeed the Commission's practice to deduct only the profit margin of the related company directly selling to the independent customer in the Union but not the profit margins from the other related companies on the same sales channel.
V tem oziru je proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da je pri zaporednih prodajah med povezanimi družbami praksa Komisije dejansko, da odšteje le stopnjo dobička povezane družbe, ki prodaja neposredno neodvisni stranki v Uniji, ne pa tudi stopnje dobička drugih povezanih družb na isti prodajni poti.
It is noted that in the present case the existence of a separate tax entity can serve as an indication of significant economic activities carried out by the related party located outside the Union as such activities are required under domestic tax law.
Poudariti je treba, da v tej zadevi obstoj ločenega davčnega subjekta lahko pomeni, da povezana stran, ki je zunaj Unije, opravlja precejšen del gospodarskih dejavnosti, saj take dejavnosti zahteva domača davčna zakonodaja.
In the present case and as explained in recital 31 the Commission took into account the fact that the exporting producer concerned has a related party outside the Union with a significant economic activity and the fact that the related party outside the Union deducted a mark-up for each sales transaction of the product concerned between the related parties, thus affecting price comparability for export of MSG to the Union.
V tej zadevi, in kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 31, je Komisija upoštevala dejstvo, da ima zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik povezano stran zunaj Unije, ki opravlja precejšen del gospodarskih dejavnosti, ter dejstvo, da je povezana stran zunaj Unije odštela pribitek za vsak posel prodaje zadevnega izdelka med povezanimi stranmi, kar je vplivalo na primerljivost cen izvoza MNG v Unijo.
Moreover, as mentioned in recital 31 the amount on which the adjustment was based reflected the actual verified mark-up charged between the related companies and therefore also reflected precisely the activities of the related company.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 31, je znesek, na katerem je temeljila prilagoditev, odražal dejanski preverjeni pribitek, zaračunan med povezanimi družbami, in je torej natančno odražal dejavnosti povezane družbe.
After provisional disclosure, the same exporting producer objected to the adjustment made for commissions paid on the export price claiming that they were not direct selling expenses, but paid on a monthly basis, thereby not linked to a specific sales transaction and not affecting price comparability.
Po začasnem razkritju je isti proizvajalec izvoznik nasprotoval prilagoditvam plačanih provizij na izvozno ceno, pri čemer je trdil, da ne gre za neposredne stroške prodaje, temveč da se plačujejo na mesečni osnovi in torej niso vezane na posamezne prodajne posle ter ne vplivajo na primerljivost cen.
This exporting producer alleged that the commissions paid only had an effect between the related companies and that therefore Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation would not be applicable.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je navedel, da so imele plačane provizije vpliv samo med povezanimi družbami in da naj se zato člen 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe ne bi uporabil.
The exporting producer also argued that, based on the assumption that they were considered as a single economic entity with its related company, any transfer of money within this economic entity would not be an expense or revenue for this economic entity.
Na podlagi predpostavke, da se skupaj s povezano družbo šteje za en sam gospodarski subjekt, je proizvajalec izvoznik prav tako trdil, da se vsakršen prenos denarja v okviru takšnega gospodarskega subjekta ne bi smel šteti za strošek ali prihodek za ta gospodarski subjekt.
The investigation established that according to a ‘commission agreement’ between the exporting producer and its related company, commissions became due when the exporting producer in Indonesia sold directly to independent customers in the Union market (instead of via its related company).
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da se v skladu z „dogovorom o proviziji“ med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in njegovo povezano družbo provizije plačajo, ko indonezijski proizvajalec izvoznik prodaja neposredno neodvisnim strankam na trgu Unije (namesto prek svoje povezane družbe).
The commission paid was directly linked to the net sales value.
Plačana provizija je neposredno vezana na neto prodajno vrednost.
As a result, the direct relationship between the sale and the commission paid affected price comparability under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.
Posledično je neposredna povezanost med prodajo in plačano provizijo vplivala na primerljivost cen na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe.
Finally, the assumption that the related companies were considered as a single economic entity is inaccurate.
Nenazadnje je predpostavka, da se povezane družbe štejejo za en sam gospodarski subjekt, netočna.
The investigation established that the exporting producer had itself a fully functional export department and there was no duplication of export-related tasks between the exporting producer and the related importer.
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da je imel proizvajalec izvoznik lasten popolnoma delujoč izvozni oddelek ter zato ni bilo podvajanja izvoznih nalog med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in povezanim uvoznikom.
Therefore the related company cannot be considered as an internal sales department and these arguments should be rejected.
Povezana družba se tako ne more šteti kot notranji prodajni oddelek in zato bi bilo treba te argumente zavrniti.
Alternatively, in the event export prices would be adjusted based on Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, the exporting producer claimed that the amount of commissions paid should also be excluded from the SG&A cost of the related company which were deducted from the resale price to the first independent customer in the Union in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Če pa bi se izvozne cene prilagodile na podlagi člena 2(10)(i) osnovne uredbe, je proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da bi bilo treba znesek plačanih provizij prav tako izključiti iz prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroškov povezane družbe, ki so bili odšteti od preprodajne cene prvi neodvisni stranki v Uniji v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
However, under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, when constructing a reliable export price all costs incurred between importation and resale should be deducted from the resale price to the first independent customer in the Union and there is no legal basis to compensate such costs by any income as requested by the exporting producer.
Vendar bi bilo treba v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe pri konstruiranju zanesljive izvozne cene vse stroške, ki nastanejo med uvozom in preprodajo, odšteti od preprodajne cene prvi neodvisni stranki v Uniji in za prilagoditev takšnih stroškov s kakršnimi koli prihodki, kot je zahteval proizvajalec izvoznik, ni nobene pravne podlage.
Moreover, the SG&A costs of the related company in the Union pertained to a different sales channel (i.e. via the related customer) than the income from commission which pertained to the sales channel to unrelated customers.
Poleg tega so prodajni, splošni in upravni stroški povezane družbe v Uniji izhajali iz druge prodajne poti (tj. prek povezane stranke) kot prihodki iz provizije, ki so izhajali iz prodajne poti nepovezanim strankam.
Finally, the adjustment for mark-up under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation and the determination of the export price under paragraphs (8) or (9) of the same Article 2 have different purposes and represent two different stages of the dumping analysis.
Nenazadnje imata prilagoditev za pribitek na podlagi člena 2(10) osnovne uredbe in določitev izvozne cene na podlagi člena 2(8) ali (9) osnovne uredbe različna namena in predstavljata dve različni stopnji analize dampinga.
Following final disclosure, the exporting producer reiterated its claims regarding the commission described in recital 35 and argued that it would be inconsistent to consider transfer prices between related parties as unreliable on the one hand and to adjust the export price based on a commission agreement between the related parties on the other hand.
Po dokončnem razkritju je proizvajalec izvoznik ponovil svoje trditve v zvezi s provizijo iz uvodne izjave 35 in trdil, da bi bilo nedosledno obravnavati transferne cene med povezanimi stranmi kot nezanesljive na eni strani, na drugi strani pa prilagoditi izvozno ceno na podlagi sporazuma o proviziji med povezanimi stranmi.
The exporting producer further contested the findings laid out in recital 35 that the commission paid was directly linked to the net sales value and that there was therefore a direct relationship between the sale and the commission paid thus affecting price comparability, as it was paid once per month and the details of calculation of the commission were not disclosed between parties.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je nadalje oporekal ugotovitvam iz uvodne izjave 35, da je bila plačana provizija neposredno vezana na neto prodajno vrednost in da je zato obstajala neposredna povezanost med prodajo in plačano provizijo, kar je vplivalo na primerljivost cen, saj se je provizija plačevala enkrat mesečno, podrobnosti o izračunu provizije pa med stranmi niso bile razkrite.
The exporting producer did neither substantiate further the claims nor provide any additional factual information supporting its statement that could revert the abovementioned conclusions.
Proizvajalec izvoznik ni niti nadalje utemeljil svojih trditev niti ni zagotovil nobenih dodatnih dejstev, ki bi podpirala njegovo izjavo in spremenila navedene sklepe.
Therefore, the conclusions set out in recitals 35 to 37 are confirmed.
Zato se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 35 do 37 potrdijo.
After provisional disclosure, one exporting producer claimed an adjustment should be made on the normal value for promotional and incentive costs.
Po začasnem razkritju je en proizvajalec izvoznik zahteval prilagoditev normalne vrednosti za stroške promocije in spodbud.
The exporting producer argued that these costs did not incur on export sales to the Union while they had a direct impact on the domestic sales price.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da ti stroški niso nastali pri izvozu v Unijo, imajo pa neposreden učinek na prodajno ceno na domačem trgu.
In support of this argument, the exporting producer claimed that at least in certain cases these costs could be traced to specific domestic sales transactions.
V podporo temu argumentu je proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da bi bilo mogoče vsaj v nekaterih primerih najti izvor teh stroškov v posameznih prodajnih poslih na domačem trgu.
Finally, this exporting producer argued that promotional and incentive costs reflected the different levels of trade on the domestic market (where MSG was sold directly to retailers) on the one hand and sales to the Union (which were made to traders and distributors) on the other hand.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi trdil, da stroški promocije in spodbud odražajo različne ravni trgovine na domačem trgu (na katerem se MNG prodaja neposredno trgovcem na drobno) na eni strani ter prodajo v Unijo (ki se opravi trgovcem in distributerjem) na drugi strani.