natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the absence of any comments concerning the imports from the country concerned, the conclusions set out in recitals 61 to 70 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker pripomb v zvezi z uvozom iz zadevne države ni bilo, se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 61 do 70 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Following provisional disclosure, one interested party claimed that the analysis of the economic situation of the Union industry would be affected by the interdependence of the AHF and the ACF markets.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani je po začasnem razkritju trdila, da bi soodvisnost trgov AHF in ACF vplivala na analizo gospodarskega položaja industrije Unije.
The party claimed that the interdependence of these markets was due to three main assumptions: (i) all sampled Union producers were able to produce both AHF and ACF on the same manufacturing facilities and equipment, (ii) the relative ease to switch between the production of ACF and AHF, and (iii) the high price elasticity of demand of both products.
Trdila je, da soodvisnost teh trgov izhaja iz treh glavnih predpostavk: (i) vsi vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije so lahko proizvajali tako AHF kot ACF v istih proizvodnih objektih in z isto opremo, (ii) preklop s proizvodnje ACF na proizvodnjo AHF je razmeroma lahek ter (iii) cenovna elastičnost povpraševanja po obeh izdelkih je velika.
The party finally claimed that the Union producers were not able to distinguish the economic factors relating to each of these products separately and that therefore, the Commission should have applied Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation and based its injury assessment on a broader basis.
Stran je trdila še, da proizvajalci Unije niso mogli razlikovati gospodarskih dejavnikov, povezanih z vsakim od teh izdelkov posebej, zato bi morala Komisija uporabiti člen 3(8) osnovne uredbe in pri svoji oceni škode upoštevati širšo podlago.
It has to be noted that ACF is, however, a different product than AHF and it is used in different applications.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da je ACF drugačen izdelek kot AHF in se uporablja za drugačne namene.
As explained in recital 131 of the provisional Regulation, the largest sampled Union producer of AHF was producing solely AHF.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 131 začasne uredbe, je največji vzorčeni proizvajalec AHF v Uniji proizvajal le AHF.
As also mentioned in this recital, the investigation has shown that those Union producers producing both AHF and ACF could not switch easily from one product to the other as the production of both products in certain quantities is needed in order to maximise efficiency.
V isti uvodni izjavi je navedeno tudi, da je preiskava pokazala, da tisti proizvajalci Unije, ki proizvajajo tako AHF kot ACF, niso mogli brez težav preklopiti z enega izdelka na drugega, saj je za povečanje učinkovitosti potrebna proizvodnja obeh izdelkov v določenem obsegu.
In addition, the investigation has shown that the sampled Union producers had a stable ratio of production between the two types of foils.
Poleg tega je preiskava pokazala, da je bilo pri vzorčenih proizvajalcih Unije razmerje proizvodnje med obema vrstama folije stabilno.
Furthermore, the Union producers that were manufacturing both AHF and ACF were able to separate the economic and financial data for the production and sales of AHF from those for the production and sales of ACF.
Proizvajalci Unije, ki so proizvajali tako AHF kot ACF, so lahko ekonomske in finančne podatke o proizvodnji in prodaji AHF ločili od podatkov o proizvodnji in prodaji ACF.
Therefore, the injury analysis in recitals 71 to 108 of the provisional Regulation only refers to the production and sales of AHF in the Union and the claim that the Commission should have applied Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation was therefore rejected.
Torej se analiza škode iz uvodnih izjav 71 do 108 začasne uredbe nanaša samo na proizvodnjo in prodajo AHF v Uniji, zato je bila trditev, da bi morala Komisija uporabiti člen 3(8) osnovne uredbe, zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, this interested party disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that the application of Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation was not applicable in this case.
Ta zainteresirana stran se po dokončnem razkritju ni strinjala s sklepom Komisije, da uporaba člena 3(8) osnovne uredbe v tem primeru ne velja.
The interested party reiterated its arguments showed in recitals 29 and 30 above without bringing any new elements.
Zainteresirana stran je ponovila svoje trditve iz uvodnih izjav 29 in 30, pri čemer ni predložila novih informacij.
It also insisted that the Commission could not establish that most Union producers were able to separate the economic and financial data for the production of AHF and ACF, however without substantiating its claim.
Poleg tega je vztrajala, da Komisija ni mogla določiti, da je večina proizvajalcev Unije lahko ločila ekonomske in finančne podatke o proizvodnji AHF in ACF, vendar svoje trditve ni utemeljila.
Therefore, the Commission confirms that it did not need to have recourse to Article 3(8) of the basic Regulation in this case because the verified data of the sampled Union producers permitted the separate identification of the production of the like product.
Zato Komisija potrjuje, da ji v tem primeru ni bilo treba uporabiti člena 3(8) osnovne uredbe, ker so preverjeni podatki vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije omogočali ločeno opredelitev proizvodnje podobnega izdelka.
Because the claims made by this interested party are mere allegations that are factually incorrect, they are rejected.
Trditve te zainteresirane strani so zgolj domneve, ki temeljijo na napačnih podatkih, zato se zavrnejo.
Following provisional disclosure, the Russian authorities asked the Commission to provide the non-confidential versions of the responses of the sampled Union producers and all other evidence showing material injury.
Ruski organi so po začasnem razkritju Komisijo pozvali, naj zagotovi nezaupne različice odgovorov vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije in vse druge dokaze o znatni škodi.
They further requested access to the methodology used by the Commission to assess the material injury suffered by the Union producers.
Poleg tega so zahtevali dostop do metodologije, ki jo je Komisija uporabila pri oceni znatne škode, ki so jo utrpeli proizvajalci Unije.
The Commission recalls that the Russian authorities were informed, together with all interested parties, on 25 August 2015 (following their submission to the provisional disclosure) on the exact procedure to follow in order to obtain access to the non-confidential file of the investigation.
Komisija je navedla, da so bili ruski organi, skupaj z vsemi zainteresiranimi stranmi, 25. avgusta 2015 (po predložitvi svojih stališč o začasnem razkritju) obveščeni o natančnem postopku, ki naj bi ga upoštevali, da bi pridobili dostop do nezaupnih dokumentov preiskave.
The non-confidential versions of those responses were in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information provided in confidence.
Nezaupne različice teh odgovorov so bile dovolj natančne za smiselno razumevanje vsebine zaupno zagotovljenih informacij.
As concerns the other evidence that supports the finding of material injury suffered by the Union industry, this was presented in recitals 71 to 108 of the provisional Regulation.
Drugi dokazi, ki podpirajo ugotovitev znatne škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, so predstavljeni v uvodnih izjavah 71 do 108 začasne uredbe.
Following provisional disclosure, two interested parties claimed that not all injury indicators showed a negative trend and that the existence of a positive trend of some of the injury indicators would demonstrate that the Union industry did not suffer material injury.
Dve zainteresirani strani sta po začasnem razkritju trdili, da niso vsi kazalniki škode kazali negativnega trenda in da bi bil obstoj pozitivnega trenda nekaterih kazalnikov škode dokaz, da industrija Unije ni utrpela znatne škode.
It was also claimed that the insufficient increase in the Union industry's sales volume does not point to material injury as this was the result of insufficient production capacity when demand in the Union grew.
Trdili sta tudi, da nezadostno povečanje obsega prodaje industrije Unije ne kaže na znatno škodo, saj je bilo posledica nezadostne proizvodne zmogljivosti ob povečanju povpraševanja v Uniji.
Under Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, a finding of material injury is based on an overall assessment of all the relevant injury indicators.
V skladu s členom 3(5) osnovne uredbe ugotovitev znatne škode temelji na celoviti oceni vseh pomembnih kazalnikov škode.
Drawing conclusions solely based on certain selected injury indicators would distort the analysis in this case.
Sklepanje zgolj na podlagi nekaterih izbranih kazalnikov škode bi v tem primeru izkrivilo analizo.
Thus, as concluded in recital 106 of the provisional Regulation, although production capacity, production and sales of the Union industry increased in the period considered such increase was below the increase in consumption.
Zato v skladu s sklepom v uvodni izjavi 106 začasne uredbe povečanje proizvodne zmogljivosti, proizvodnje in prodaje industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju ni preseglo povečanja potrošnje.
Despite the difficult financial situation of the Union industry, Union producers made efforts to invest to increase capacity to benefit from the increase in the Union consumption.
Proizvajalci Unije so si kljub težkemu finančnemu položaju industrije Unije prizadevali za naložbe, s katerimi bi povečali zmogljivost in tako izkoristili povečanje potrošnje Unije.
However, as they were not able to increase prices to cost-covering levels, their ability to invest in capacity increases was limited.
Ker pa niso mogli zvišati cen na raven pokrivanja stroškov, je bila njihova sposobnost vlaganja v povečanje zmogljivosti omejena.
The producers were to a certain extent able to finance the losses incurred from the production and sales of AHF with the profits obtained from the sale of other products.
Proizvajalci so bili z dobičkom od prodaje drugih izdelkov do neke mere sposobni financirati izgube, nastale pri proizvodnji in prodaji AHF.
However, on long term, such strategy is not sustainable for the Union industry to produce a product that is loss making.
Vendar strategija proizvodnje izdelka, ki ustvarja izgubo, na dolgi rok ni trajnostna za industrijo Unije.
Therefore, the claim that not all injury indicators showed a negative trend and that there was, therefore, no material injury, was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev, da niso vsi kazalniki škode kazali negativnega trenda in da zato znatne škode ni bilo, zavrnjena.
Following final disclosure, the Russian authorities reiterated their claim before provisional stage that according to publicly available financial documents of the complainants there would be no material injury.
Po dokončnem razkritju so ruski organi ponovili svojo trditev pred začasno fazo, da glede na javno dostopne finančne dokumente pritožnikov naj ne bi bilo znatne škode.
As explained in recital 107 of the provisional Regulation, some of the Union producers did not produce exclusively AHF and therefore the publicly available financial documents cannot reveal the actual situation of the Union industry for AHF.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 107 začasne uredbe, nekateri proizvajalci Unije niso proizvajali izključno AHF, zato javno dostopni finančni dokumenti ne morejo razkriti dejanskega položaja industrije Unije v zvezi z AHF.
Moreover, the results of the investigation are based on actual verified data of the Union industry related to AHF.
Poleg tega rezultati preiskave temeljijo na dejansko preverjenih podatkih industrije Unije v zvezi z AHF.
Following final disclosure, one interested party reiterated its claim that the majority of the relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry of AHF had a positive development during the period considered.
Po dokončnem razkritju je ena zainteresirana stran ponovila svojo trditev, da je bil razvoj večine pomembnih dejavnikov in kazalnikov, ki vplivajo na stanje industrije Unije glede AHF, v obravnavanem obdobju pozitiven.
It furthermore claimed that the Commission's analysis of the situation of the Union industry is based only on a few indicators.
Poleg tega je trdila, da analiza položaja industrije Unije, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, temelji samo na nekaj kazalnikih.
However, the Commission's analysis of the situation of the Union industry is based on the totality of the factors presented in Section D of the provisional Regulation.
Vendar analiza položaja industrije Unije, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, temelji na vseh dejavnikih, predstavljenih v oddelku D začasne uredbe.
The fact that some of the injury indicators like production, production capacity and sales volume showed a positive trend during the period considered does not undermine the overall conclusion that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
Dejstvo, da so nekateri kazalniki škode, kot so proizvodnja, proizvodna zmogljivost in obseg prodaje, pokazali pozitiven trend v obravnavanem obdobju, ne izpodbija splošnega sklepa, da je industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo v smislu člena 3(5) osnovne uredbe.
The indicators cannot be seen in isolation from each other, the correlation between the indicators needs to be taken into account as well.
Kazalnikov se ne sme obravnavati ločeno drug od drugega, ampak je treba upoštevati tudi korelacijo med njimi.
As explained in recital 106 of the provisional Regulation, production volume increased by 7 % and production capacity by 12 % during the period considered.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 106 začasne uredbe, se je obseg proizvodnje v obravnavanem obdobju povečal za 7 %, proizvodna zmogljivost pa za 12 %.
However these increases fell behind the increase in consumption which was much higher, namely by [17 %-28 %] over the period considered.
Vendar so bila ta povečanja manjša od povečanja potrošnje, ki je bila v obravnavanem obdobju veliko večja, in sicer za [17 %–28 %].
As a consequence, even though the sales volume of the Union industry increased by [2 %-10 %] during the period considered, in a market with an even higher increase in consumption, the increase in sales volume did not lead to an increase of market share, but to the contrary, to a loss of market share by 8 percentage points.
Povečanje obsega prodaje na trgu s še večjim povečanjem potrošnje zato ni zagotovilo povečanja tržnega deleža, ampak nasprotno, povzročilo je izgubo tržnega deleža za 8 odstotnih točk, čeprav se je obseg prodaje industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju povečal za [2 %–10 %].
This demonstrates that the Union industry could not benefit from the increase in consumption.
To kaže, da industrija Unije ni mogla imeti koristi od povečanja potrošnje.
Furthermore, even though the investments increased by 47 % during the period considered, this still fell behind the investments needed to keep up with the increase in consumption.
Čeprav so se naložbe v obravnavanem obdobju povečale za 47 %, so bile še vedno nižje od naložb, ki bi bile potrebne za dohajanje povečanja potrošnje.
Finally, the cash flow showed a positive trend, but in absolute terms it remained at low levels.
Denarni tok je pokazal pozitiven trend, vendar je v absolutnem smislu ostal na nizkih ravneh.
Consequently, the positive trend of some indicators, when analysed in correlation with other factors, confirms in fact an injurious situation of the Union industry.
Zato analiza pozitivnih trendov nekaterih kazalnikov v korelaciji z drugimi kazalniki dejansko potrjuje obstoj škodljivih razmer v industriji Unije.
Therefore, the claims in recital 38 above were rejected.
Trditve iz uvodne izjave 38 so bile torej zavrnjene.
Following final disclosure, five rewinders alleged, in the context of requesting the measures to be imposed in the form of a minimum import price, that the selling price of the Union producer manufacturing solely AHF increased after the investigation period, while the aluminium premium decreased.
Po dokončnem razkritju je pet previjalcev v okviru zahteve, da se ukrepi uvedejo v obliki minimalne uvozne cene, trdilo, da se je prodajna cena proizvajalca Unije, ki proizvaja le AHF, po obdobju preiskave zvišala, medtem ko se je premija za aluminij znižala.
The parties also claimed that these elements translated into higher profits for this Union producer.
Strani so trdile tudi, da so ti elementi povzročili višji dobiček tega proizvajalca Unije.
In accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, the conclusion on injury above was reached on the basis of verified data for the period considered, not taking into account post investigation period data and on basis of data representative for the totality of the sampled companies and not on one Union producer in isolation.
V skladu s členom 6(1) osnovne uredbe je bil navedeni sklep o škodi izpeljan na podlagi preverjenih podatkov za obravnavano obdobje, pri čemer se niso upoštevali podatki iz obdobja po obdobju preiskave, ter na podlagi reprezentativnih podatkov za vse vzorčene družbe in ne zgolj ločeno za enega proizvajalca Unije.
Therefore, the claim in recital 40 was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev iz uvodne izjave 40 zavrnjena.
On the basis of the above and in in the absence of any other comments, the conclusions set out in recitals 71 to 108 of the provisional Regulation that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation were confirmed.
Na podlagi navedenega in ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 71 do 108 začasne uredbe, in sicer da je industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo v smislu člena 3(5) osnovne uredbe, potrjeni.
The Union industry suffered material injury, which was reflected most notably in the negative profitability almost during the entire period considered.
Industrija Unije je utrpela znatno škodo, ki se je najbolj izražala v negativni dobičkonosnosti v skoraj celotnem obravnavanem obdobju.
Following provisional disclosure, some interested parties reiterated their claims submitted prior to the imposition of provisional duties, i.e. that the injury suffered by the Union industry was not caused by the Russian imports but by other factors such as the inability of the Union industry to increase its production capacity in line with the increasing demand, imports from other third countries like Turkey and the PRC and the increase in production of ACF by the Union industry to the detriment of AHF.
Po začasnem razkritju so nekatere zainteresirane strani ponovile svoje trditve, predložene pred uvedbo začasnih dajatev, in sicer da škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, ni povzročil ruski uvoz, ampak drugi dejavniki, kot so nezmožnost industrije Unije, da bi povečala svojo proizvodno zmogljivost v skladu s povečanjem povpraševanja, uvoz iz drugih tretjih držav, kot sta Turčija in LRK, ter povečanje proizvodnje ACF s strani industrije Unije na škodo AHF.
The claimed impact of other factors on the material injury suffered by the Union industry is addressed in recitals 49 to 97 below.
Zatrjevani učinek drugih dejavnikov na znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, je obravnavan v uvodnih izjavah 49 do 97.
In addition, one party claimed that the profitability of the Union industry increased in 2013 when the Russian imports were at their highest absolute volume which allegedly would demonstrate that the Russian imports did not have an impact on the profitability of the Union industry and did therefore not cause the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Poleg tega je ena stran trdila, da se je dobičkonosnost industrije Unije povečala v letu 2013, ko je bil absolutni obseg ruskega uvoza največji, kar bi domnevno dokazovalo, da ruski uvoz ni vplival na dobičkonosnost industrije Unije in zato ni povzročil znatne škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
As shown in recital 99 of the provisional Regulation, the profitability of the Union industry was slightly fluctuating, between – 2,9 % and 0,2 % during the period considered.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 99 začasne uredbe, je dobičkonosnost industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju nekoliko nihala, in sicer med – 2,9 % in 0,2 %.
In 2013, the profitability of the Union industry barely exceeded the breakeven point, i.e. amounted to 0,2 %.
Leta 2013 je dobičkonosnost industrije Unije komaj presegla prag dobička, in sicer je znašala 0,2 %.
While the volume of the Russian imports was the highest in the same year, its market share remained constant at 34 %.
Medtem ko je bil istega leta obseg ruskega uvoza največji, je njegov 34-odstotni tržni delež ostal nespremenjen.
Therefore, this minor temporary improvement of the Union industry's profitability did not affect the conclusion that the overall profitability of the Union industry was negative (with the exception of 2013) and remained under the target profit of 5 % over the entire period considered.
Zato to manjše začasno izboljšanje dobičkonosnosti industrije Unije ni vplivalo na sklep, da je bila splošna dobičkonosnost industrije Unije negativna (razen leta 2013) in je v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju ostala manjša od 5-odstotnega ciljnega dobička.
It did also not affect the conclusion drawn in recital 116 of the provisional Regulation that there was a causal link between the deterioration of the Union industry's situation and the dumped Russian imports which held a constant and significant market share.
Prav tako ni vplivalo na sklep iz uvodne izjave 116 začasne uredbe o vzročni zvezi med poslabšanjem razmer industrije Unije in dampinškim ruskim uvozom, ki je ohranil nespremenjen in znaten tržni delež.
In the light of the above, the causal link was established between dumped imports and the material injury found on the basis of the combined existence of substantial import volumes from Russia (34 % market share held by one producer) and the high price pressure exerted by these imports on the Union market (price underselling of around 12 %).
Ob upoštevanju navedenega se je vzročna zveza ugotovila med dampinškim uvozom in znatno škodo, ugotovljeno na podlagi soobstoja znatnega obsega uvoza iz Rusije (34-odstotni tržni delež enega proizvajalca) in velikega pritiska na cene, ki ga je ta uvoz izvajal na trgu Unije (nelojalno nižanje ciljnih cen, ki je znašalo približno 12 %).
In the absence of any other comments as regard the effects of the dumped imports, the conclusions set out in recitals 110 to 116 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z učinki dampinškega uvoza, so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 110 do 116 začasne uredbe potrjeni.
Effect of imports from other countries
Učinki uvoza iz drugih držav
After provisional disclosure, it came to the attention of the Commission that in table 11 of the provisional Regulation, total imports included erroneously also the imports from Russia.
Po začasnem razkritju je Komisija ugotovila, da je v preglednici 11 začasne uredbe v celotni uvoz napačno vključen tudi uvoz iz Rusije.
The below table replaces table 11 of the provisional Regulation:
Spodnja preglednica nadomesti preglednico 11 začasne uredbe:
Source: Eurostat and questionnaire reply.
Vir: Eurostat in izpolnjen vprašalnik.
Total imports (without Russia)
Celotni uvoz (brez Rusije)
One interested party claimed that the Commission failed to separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the imports from the PRC and Turkey, while other interested party claimed that the Commission underestimated the impact of imports from third countries on the situation of the Union industry.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da Komisija ni opredelila in ločila škodljivih učinkov uvoza iz LRK in Turčije, medtem ko je druga zainteresirana stran trdila, da je Komisija podcenjevala učinek uvoza iz tretjih držav na položaj industrije Unije.