natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to protect these ongoing investigations, it is important not to divulge any information that would enable third parties to link the findings in the following recitals to a specific company.
Ta družba ni mogla predložiti pogodb za nakup strojev za proizvodnjo sončnih modulov.
Hence, the Commission has not specified which company is concerned by which findings.
Ta družba prav tako ni razkrila svoje povezave s kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom in nakupov izdelka v preiskavi od povezane družbe.
Importers that have purchased the product under investigation from those companies and would like to understand what exactly is the situation of their supplier may contact directly their supplier, or the Commission, in view of having more detailed information.
Poleg tega je ta družba predložila dokumente z navedenimi različnimi datumi ustanovitve.
For the purpose of this investigation the following details have been established:
Preiskava je odkrila, da je bila družba ustanovljena leta 2013, tj. po začetku prvotne protidampinške in protisubvencijske preiskave, in da je opustila proizvodnjo kmalu po koncu maja 2015, tj. po uvedbi registracije za malezijske module.
two of those three companies in Taiwan were found to import laminated solar modules from the PRC that they did not reveal in their questionnaire reply.
Ta družba je v svojem odgovoru na dopis iz člena 18(4) trdila, da večina malih družb v Maleziji nima pogodb o zaposlitvi za svoje zaposlene.
One of those companies admitted during the verification visit that they reported these imports in their questionnaire reply as imports of solar cells from the PRC.
Poleg tega je trdila, da je imela zadostne zmogljivosti za izdelavo navedenih količin.
This company had also reported these imports as solar cells in their customs declaration.
Družba je tudi trdila, da je zaposlila prodajno osebje kitajske družbe, vendar z njo ni imela formalnih povezav.
In case of both those Taiwanese companies, documents were found clearly showing that they re-exported the laminated solar modules from the PRC to the Union.
Ta dodatna pojasnila niso mogla spremeniti zgoraj navedenih sklepov.
These two companies in Taiwan did not provide any additional clarifications in reply to the Article 18(4) letter, as they did not reply at all (see above recital 83).
Družba zlasti ni uspela dokazati, da je bila sposobna proizvesti izvožene količine.
For the reasons set out above in recital (85) and with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in section 2 of the present Regulation, each of which are sufficient on their own, these companies were found to be engaged in circumvention practices and could not be granted an exemption in accordance with article 13(4) of the basic regulation.
Poleg tega so bile precejšnje razlike med količino uvoženih celic, ki jih je navedla družba, in količino celic, ki jih je navedel njen dobavitelj.
For the following three Malaysian companies, as explained below, use was made of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation for the following reasons.
Tudi dejstvo, da družba zaposluje osebje kitajske družbe, potrjuje ugotovljene povezave s kitajsko družbo.
One Malaysian company reported in their questionnaire reply that they purchased solar cells in the PRC, and they specified that the modules with Chinese cells were shipped to other markets than the Union.
Glede na ugotovitve v zvezi s spremembami vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja, kakor je opisano v oddelku 2 ter v uvodnih izjavah 94 in 95, pri čemer tako ene kot druge že same po sebi zadostujejo, izvzetja, kakor ga je zahtevala ta malezijska družba, v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe ni bilo mogoče odobriti.
However, this company could not prove that it bought sufficient quantities of cells outside of the PRC that would enable them to produce the amount of solar modules that they exported to the Union.
Druga družba v Maleziji je bila ustanovljena junija 2013, tj. po začetku prvotne protidampinške in protisubvencijske preiskave, in je module začela prodajati decembra 2013, tj. takoj po uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških in izravnalnih dajatev iz prvotne uredbe.
During the verification visit this company was found to import laminated solar modules from the PRC, which it fraudulently declared as imports of solar glass.
Družba je v obdobju poročanja proizvajala fotonapetostne module iz polikristalnega silicija, ki so bili povečini uvoženi iz Tajvana.
This company was also found not to have sufficient production capacity to produce the volumes of the product under investigation that they exported.
Za to družbo se je zdelo, da ima tesne vezi s kitajsko družbo, katere zavezo je Komisija sprejela, vendar pozneje zaradi kršitev umaknila [10].
This company was also found to have links to a Chinese company active in the photovoltaic business.
Prvič, generalni direktor malezijske družbe je bil prej na vodilnem položaju kitajske družbe.
In its reply to the Article 18(4) letter, the Malaysian company denied that they exported modules with Chinese cells to the Union.
Drugič, celice so bile prvotno v številnih primerih kupljene prek kitajske družbe in/ali drugih kitajskih družb, pri čemer so bile fizično prepeljane iz tretje države (v glavnem iz Tajvana) v LRK, preden so bile očitno prepeljane naprej do družbe v Maleziji.
However, as stated above, this was fraudulently declared as solar glass.
Petič, zdi se, da so predloge „prodajnih pogodb“ kitajske in tajvanske družbe enake, tako po strukturi kot po vsebini.
Furthermore, the company was not able to demonstrate that they had bought sufficient cells in South Korea for all modules it exported to the Union.
Šestič, predstavnik kitajske družbe je v spletnem videoposnetku izjavil, da kitajska družba malezijski družbi zagotavlja tehnično svetovanje in nadzor.
The company also argued that there had been a change in ownership since April 2014.
Drugi elementi, ki jih ta malezijska družba ni razkrila med preiskavo na kraju samem, ampak so jih zagotovili carinski organi ene od držav članic Unije, so naslednji:
This change of ownership, however, did not change the fact that links do exist between the Malaysian and Chinese companies in the sense that the Malaysian company's main supplier of raw materials continued to be the Chinese module manufacturer.
Malezijska družba je sklenila pogodbo o uporabi blagovne znamke z isto kitajsko družbo, katere zaveza je bila sprejeta; po tej pogodbi je imela malezijska družba dovoljenje za uporabo blagovne znamke kitajske družbe, če so tako zahtevale stranke.
Therefore, the explanations provided by the company in reply to the Article 18(4) letter were not such as to lead to a change in the finding that they re-exported to the Union the Chinese laminated solar modules and that at least some of the modules exported to the EU used Chinese cells.
Poleg tega je eno prvih strank v Uniji malezijski družbi predstavil trgovski zastopnik kitajske družbe.
In view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practises, as set out in section 2, and the findings as set out in the recitals (89) to (92) above, each of which are sufficient on their own, the exemption as requested by this Malaysian company could not be granted in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.
In kot zadnje, carinski organi ene od držav članic Unije so prvo pošiljko malezijske družbe preiskali, ker so bili moduli označeni z napisom „Made in China“ in blagovno znamko kitajske družbe.
Another company in Malaysia was found not to have sufficient production capacity to produce the volumes of the product under investigation that it exported.
Malezijska družba je na dopis iz člena 18(4) odgovorila z dopisom z dne 14. decembra 2015, v katerem je navedla, da ni želela prikriti trgovinskih vezi s kitajsko družbo in da je obrazec za izvzetje izpolnila v dobri veri.
The same company was not able to supply any labour contracts for its employees;
Navedla je tudi, da so carinski organi države članice po preiskavi sprejeli razlago, da je napačno označene module dejansko proizvedla družba v Maleziji.
hence it was not able to prove that it had any employees during the investigation period.
Vendar so carinski organi države članice Komisiji potrdili, da zadevni moduli niso bili malezijskega porekla.
This company was not able to supply purchase contracts for the production machines for solar modules.
Malezijska družba je po razkritju trdila, da je Komisija svoj sklep oprla na domneve, predpostavke in lažne obtožbe, pri čemer ni nikoli razkrila njihove morebitne podlage ali dokazov zanje, s čimer je ogrozila pravico družbe do obrambe.
This company also failed to disclose their relationship to a Chinese exporting producer and the purchases of the product under investigation from the related company.
Komisiji je zlasti očitala, da ni razkrila spletnega videoposnetka iz uvodne izjave 97 in informacij, ki jih je prejela od carinskih organov države članice, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 98.
In addition, this company provided documents indicating different establishment dates.
Družba je poleg tega trdila, da ni imela povezav s kitajsko družbo in da med preveritvenim obiskom ni prikrila svoje pogodbe s to kitajsko družbo o uporabi blagovne znamke.
The investigation revealed that this company was established in 2013, i.e. after the initiation of the original AD and AS investigations and suspended the production shortly after May 2015, i.e. after the imposition of registration on Malaysian modules.
Glede preiskave carinskih organov države članice je družba trdila, da je bilo blago na koncu v celoti sproščeno kot moduli malezijskega porekla.
This company claimed, in their reply to the Article 18(4) letter, that most small companies in Malaysia do not have labour contracts for their employees.
Poleg tega je trdila, da datum njene ustanovitve in dejstvo, da je družba prodajala družbi s sedežem v ZDA, ki je povezana s kitajsko družbo, nista utemeljena argumenta, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče zavrniti izvzetje.
In addition, they claimed that they had sufficient capacity to produce the claimed amounts.
Ta dodatna pojasnila iz razlogov, ki so navedeni spodaj, niso mogla spremeniti zgoraj navedenih sklepov.
The company also argued that they hired sales people from a Chinese company but did not have formal links with this Chinese company.
Elementi iz uvodne izjave 97 niso bili zgolj domneve in predpostavke, ampak dejstva, ki jim ta družba ni ugovarjala.
These additional explanations were not such that this would lead to a change in the conclusions set out above.
Poleg tega so bila ta dejstva družbi predstavljena v dopisu iz člena 18 z dne 3. decembra 2015, v katerem je bila družba tudi pozvana k predložitvi pripomb.
In particular, the company has not demonstrated that it was able to produce the quantities exported.
Ugotovitve so bile nato družbi razkrite 22. decembra 2015 in tudi takrat je bila družba pozvana k predložitvi pripomb.
In addition, there was a significant discrepancy between the quantity of imported cells as reported by the company and the quantity of cells reported by its supplier.
Glede na navedeno je bila pravica do obrambe družbe v celoti upoštevana.
Moreover, the fact that they hire staff from the Chinese company confirms the links found with the Chinese company.
Dejstvo ostaja, da je družba med preveritvenim obiskom poskušala če ne prikriti, pa vsaj zmanjšati pomen svojih gospodarskih vezi, vključno z obstojem pogodbe o uporabi blagovne znamke s kitajsko družbo.
In view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in section 2, and the findings as set out in the recitals (94) and (95) above, each of which are sufficient on their own, the exemption as requested by this Malaysian company could not be granted in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.
Malezijska družba je med preveritvenim obiskom omenila pogodbo o uporabi blagovne znamke kitajske družbe, vendar je izrecno navedla „za določen čas“.
Another company in Malaysia was established in June 2013, i.e. after the initiation of the original AD and AS investigations, and started selling modules from December 2013 onwards, i.e. just after the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties by the original Regulation.
Pogodba o uporabi blagovne znamke ni bila predložena, prav tako pa na kraju samem ni bilo razkrito, da je bila pogodba podaljšana za nova štiri leta.
The company produced polycrystalline PV modules during the Reporting Period from cells, which were mainly imported from Taiwan.
Med preveritvenim obiskom ni bil službam Komisije podrobno pojasnjen ali prikazan nobeden od elementov iz uvodne izjave 97, ki so kazali na močne gospodarske vezi med obema družbama.
This company appeared to have close ties to a Chinese company, from which an undertaking had been accepted and subsequently withdrawn for violations [10].
Družba tudi ni ugovarjala točnosti teh elementov.
First, the General Manager of the Malaysian company previously occupied a managerial position at the Chinese company.
Člen 13(4) osnovne uredbe določa, da mora za odobritev izvzetja proizvajalec izvoznik dokazati, da ni povezan z nobenim proizvajalcem, za katerega veljajo ukrepi in za katerega se ugotovi, da ni vpleten v izogibanje.
Second, cells were initially purchased on many occasions through the Chinese company and/or other Chinese companies whereby the cells physically were transported from a third country (mainly Taiwan) to the PRC, before apparently being transported further to the company located in Malaysia.
V zvezi s prvim merilom (nepovezanost s proizvajalcem, za katerega veljajo ukrepi) je proizvajalec izvoznik poskušal če ne prikriti, pa vsaj zmanjšati pomen svojih mnogih vezi s kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, kakor so navedene v uvodni izjavi 97.
Third, most modules sold to third countries during the Reporting Period were sold to a US company, which is related to the Chinese company.
Vendar pa dokazno breme za neobstoj take povezave nosi proizvajalec izvoznik.
Fourth, the legal representative of the Chinese company was present during the on spot investigation of the Malaysian company.
Zaradi nesodelovanja glede te točke in ker ni bilo mogoče preveriti vseh novih informacij, predloženih v odgovor na razkritje, se je morala Komisija pri oceni, ali je proizvajalec izvoznik izpodbil vtis prima facie, da je povezan s kitajsko družbo, zanašati na razpoložljiva dejstva.
Fifth, sales contracts' templates of both the Chinese and Taiwanese companies appear to be the same, both in terms of lay-out and substance.
Po mnenju Komisije proizvajalec izvoznik pri tem ni bil uspešen, saj obstajajo številni pokazatelji tesne povezave med njim in kitajsko družbo.
Sixth, a representative of the Chinese company stated in an internet video that the Chinese company is providing technical advice and supervision to the Malaysian company.
V vsakem primeru in tudi, če je bil prvi kriterij quod non izpolnjen, Komisija meni, da drugi kriterij ni bil.
Other elements which were not disclosed by this Malaysian company during the on spot investigation, but were received from the customs authorities of a Member State are the following:
Proizvajalec izvoznik je bil v izogibanje vpleten na dva različna načina in vsak od njiju že sam po sebi zadošča za zavrnitev zahtevka za izvzetje.
The Malaysian company had concluded a brand usage authorisation agreement with the same Chinese company from which an undertaking had been accepted, by which the Malaysian company was authorised to use the Chinese company's brand name, if so requested by customers.
Pomemben pokazatelj vpletenosti v izogibanje, ki je skupen obema načinoma in je nesporno prisoten, je dejstvo, da je proizvajalec izvoznik svojo dejavnost začel po uvedbi prvotnih ukrepov.
In addition, one of the first customers in the Union was introduced to the Malaysian company by a sales representative of the Chinese company.
Prvič, trditev družbe, da je bilo vse blago iz uvodne izjave 98 sproščeno kot moduli malezijskega porekla, ne drži.
The Malaysian company replied to the Article 18(4) letter by a letter dated 14 December 2015 stating that it had not intended to hide the commercial ties with the Chinese company and that they had replied in good faith to the exemption form.
Da se zavaruje potekajoča preiskava te nacionalne carinske uprave, teh informacij ni bilo mogoče razkriti malezijski družbi.
They also stated that the customs authorities of a Member State accepted after the investigation that the wrongly labelled modules were actually produced by the company in Malaysia.
Vendar pa je Komisija družbo opozorila na možnost, da točnost informacij preveri pooblaščenec za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih, in sicer na podlagi členov 12, 13 in 15 svojega mandata.
However, the customs authorities of a Member State confirmed to the Commission that these modules were not of Malaysian origin.
Informacije, ki so jih zagotovili carinski organi, dokazujejo pretovarjanje proizvajalca izvoznika, zato so tudi dokaz, da je ta vpleten v izogibanje.
After disclosure, the Malaysian company alleged that the Commission based its decision on assumptions, allegations and false accusations, whereby their basis and proof, if at all available, had never been disclosed to them, undermining as such the company's right of defence.
Drugič, pogodba o uporabi blagovne znamke je bila s kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom sklenjena in podaljšana takrat, ko je kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik izvažal v Unijo v skladu s pogoji zaveze.
In particular, it criticized the Commission for not having disclosed the internet video referred to in recital (97) and the information received from the customs authorities of a Member State referred to in recital (98).
Ta zaveza je med drugim prepovedovala prodajo zadevnega izdelka, proizvedenega v tretji državi, v Unijo, ker bi bil zaradi take prodaje nadzor nad zavezo, zlasti njeno določbo o navzkrižni prodaji, nemogoč ali vsaj močno otežen.
The company also argued that it was not related to the Chinese company and that it had not hidden their brand usage authorization contract with this Chinese company during the verification visit.
Besedilo nezaupne različice zaveze je bilo v industriji dobro znano in je bilo pri službah Komisije na voljo na zahtevo.
With regard to the investigation of the customs authorities of a Member State, the company argued that finally all goods were released as modules of Malaysian origin.
Poleg tega so bile zaradi njegove tesne gospodarske povezave s kitajskim proizvajalcem zaveze na voljo tudi proizvajalcu izvozniku.
Finally it argued that its date of establishment and the fact that the company sold to a company in the United States, which is related to the Chinese company, are not valid arguments on the basis of which the exemption can be denied.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je s sklenitvijo pogodbe o uporabi blagovne znamke zaobšel pogoje zaveze in bil tudi na ta način vpleten v izogibanje.
The Malaysian company also requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer in Trade Proceedings, which was held on 12 January 2016.
Med zaslišanjem 12. januarja 2016 je malezijska družba izjavila, da ni predložila napačnih ali zavajajočih informacij in da je dejanska malezijska proizvajalka sončnih modulov.
Prior to that hearing, the internet video was disclosed to the company, which confirmed its accuracy during the hearing.
V zvezi z dokazi, zbranimi pri nacionalni carinski upravi, ki jih iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov ni bilo mogoče razkriti malezijski družbi, je ta zahtevala, da njihovo točnost preveri pooblaščenec za zaslišanje.
The additional explanations provided by the company were not such as to lead to a change in the conclusion as set out above for the reasons set out below.
Pooblaščenec za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih je pozneje obvestil družbo, da je preveril točnost informacij nacionalne carinske uprave in da je ta na tej podlagi ugotovila, da je bila znatna količina modulov iz te pošiljke kitajskega porekla.
The elements mentioned in recital (97) above are not mere assumptions and allegations, but facts which were as such not questioned by the company.
Zato so bile v skladu s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe ugotovitve glede te družbe utemeljene z razpoložljivimi dejstvi.
In addition, these facts were presented to the company in the Article 18 letter of 3 December 2015, in which the company was invited to comment.
Glede na ugotovitve v zvezi s spremembami vzorca trgovanja in pretovarjanja iz oddelka 2 in ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 97 do 109 glede tesne povezanosti malezijske družbe s kitajsko družbo, izvajanja pretovarjanja in kršitve zaveze, pri čemer pri čemer vsaka od teh ugotovitev že sama po sebi zadostuje, izvzetja, kakor ga je zahtevala ta malezijska družba, v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe ni bilo mogoče odobriti.
Subsequently, the findings were disclosed to the company on 22 December 2015, on which the company again was invited to comment.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve družba zlasti ne more uživati ugodnosti „varnega pristana“ iz člena 13(2) osnovne uredbe, saj tako pretovarjanje kot kršitev zaveze pomenita vpletenost v izogibanje, razen dejavnosti sestavljanja v tretji državi, v vsakem primeru pa Komisija uporabi razpoložljiva dejstva.
Accordingly, the rights of defence of the company were fully respected.
Ena družba v Tajvanu ni pravočasno razkrila podrobnih informacij o komercializaciji celic svoje povezane družbe na Kitajskem, ki so bile navedene kot rezalnik, ter podatkov o uvozu, spoštovanja tajvanskih omejitev in natančnih tokov nakupov.
The fact remains that the company at least attempted to minimize, if not to hide, its commercial ties, including the existence of its brand usage authorisation agreement, with the Chinese company during the verification visit.
Vendar so dodatna pojasnila te družbe v odgovor na zahtevo iz člena 18(1) zadostovala za odobritev izjeme tej družbi, saj je predložila zahtevane informacije, ki jih je Komisija lahko preverila.
Indeed the Malaysian company referred during the on spot verification to a brand usage of the Chinese company, however mentioning explicitly ‘for a limited period’.
Za preostalih pet družb in 21 tajvanskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključno z družbo, omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 111, je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso bili vpleteni v izogibanje in je za proizvedene module in celice zato mogoče odobriti izjeme v skladu s členom 13(4) osnovne uredbe.
The brand usage contract was neither provided nor was it revealed on spot that this agreement had been renewed for another four years.
Zlasti je bila velika večina teh družb je ustanovljenih pred uvedbo ukrepov proti LRK.
None of the elements mentioned above in recital (97), which showed strong commercial ties between the two companies, were explained in detail or shown to the Commission services during the verification visit.
Proizvodni obrati vseh teh družb so bili pregledani na podlagi njihovih izpolnjenih vprašalnikov.
Also, the accuracy of these elements was not questioned by the company.
Preverjanje statističnih podatkov o proizvodnji in zmogljivosti, stroškov proizvodnje, nabave surovin, polizdelkov in končnih izdelkov ter izvoza v Unijo je potrdilo, da so te družbe dejanske proizvajalke, pri katerih ni bilo dokazov o praksah izogibanja.
Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation provides that in order to obtain an exemption, the exporting producer needs to show that it is not related to any producer subject to the measures and not engaged in circumvention practices.
Drugi proizvajalci, ki se v tem postopku niso javili in v obdobju preiskave niso izvažali izdelka v preiskavi ter nameravajo na podlagi člena 11(4) in člena 13(4) osnovne uredbe vložiti zahtevek za izvzetje iz razširjene protidampinške dajatve, bodo morali izpolniti obrazec za izvzetje, da bo Komisija lahko ugotovila, ali se jim izvzetje lahko odobri.
With regard to the first criterion (no relation to a producer subject to the measure), the exporting producer tried to minimise, if not to hide its multiple links with the Chinese exporting producer as set out in recital (97).
Po razkritju se je več družb javilo in pozdravilo odločitev Komisije, da jih izvzame.