natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foils originating in the Russian Federation
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih aluminijastih folij s poreklom iz Ruske federacije
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9(4) Uredbe,
The European Commission (the Commission) imposed on 4 July 2015 a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foils originating in the Russian Federation (Russia) by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1081 [2] (the provisional Regulation).
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je 4. julija 2015 z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/1081 („začasna uredba“) [2] uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih aluminijastih folij s poreklom iz Ruske federacije („Rusija“).
The proceeding was initiated on 8 October 2014 following a complaint lodged on 25 August 2014 by AFM Aluminiumfolie Merseburg GmbH, Alcomet AD, Eurofoil Luxembourg SA, Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH and Impol d.o.o.
Postopek se je začel 8. oktobra 2014 na podlagi pritožbe, ki so jo 25. avgusta 2014 vložile družbe AFM Aluminiumfolie Merseburg GmbH, Alcomet AD, Eurofoil Luxembourg SA, Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH in Impol d.o.o.
(the complainants) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of aluminium foils.
(„pritožniki“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje aluminijastih folij v Uniji.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (the provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila uvedena začasna protidampinška dajatev („začasno razkritje“), je več zainteresiranih strani predložilo pisna stališča glede začasnih ugotovitev.
The intervention of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings was requested by the sole exporter, Rusal group, and five users.
Za posredovanje pooblaščenca za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih so zaprosili edini izvoznik, skupina Rusal in pet uporabnikov.
The hearing with the exporter took place in the presence of a representative of Russia on 14 October 2015.
Zaslišanje z izvoznikom je potekalo v prisotnosti predstavnika Rusije 14. oktobra 2015.
The main points discussed were the application of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for the calculation of export price and the impact of imports of aluminium converter foils (ACF) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the situation of the Union industry.
Glavni točki razprave sta bili uporaba člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe pri izračunu izvozne cene in učinek uvoza konverterskih aluminijastih folij („ACF“) iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“) na položaj industrije Unije.
The hearing with the users took place on 23 October 2015, after the deadline for submitting comments to the final disclosure.
Zaslišanje z uporabniki je potekalo 23. oktobra 2015, tj. po roku za predložitev pripomb v zvezi z dokončnim razkritjem.
The main points discussed were the alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping measures on imports of AHF from the PRC, the impact of the imports from third countries on the injury suffered by the Union industry, the impact of the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of aluminium household foil (AHF) from Russia on users, and the possibility to use the minimum import price as type of measures.
Glavne točke razprave so bile domnevno izogibanje protidampinškim ukrepom za uvoz gospodinjske aluminijaste folije („AHF“) iz LRK, učinek uvoza iz tretjih držav na škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, učinek uvedbe protidampinških ukrepov za uvoz AHF iz Rusije na uporabnike in možnost uporabe minimalne uvozne cene kot vrste ukrepov.
In addition, on 27 October 2015 five rewinders requested a confrontational hearing with the complainants.
Poleg tega je 27. oktobra 2015 pet previjalcev zahtevalo zaslišanje v obliki soočenja s pritožniki.
However, the complainants have not shown interest in participating in such hearing.
Vendar pritožniki niso izkazali interesa za udeležbo na takem zaslišanju.
The Commission informed all parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Russia and definitively collect the amounts secured by way of provisional duty (the definitive disclosure).
Komisija je vse strani obvestila o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je nameravala uvesti dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih aluminijastih folij s poreklom iz Rusije in dokončno pobrati zneske, zavarovane z začasno dajatvijo („dokončno razkritje“).
The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani so se proučile in, kadar je bilo primerno, upoštevale.
Following provisional disclosure, one of the sampled Union producers sold all its activity including equipment, rights permits, obligations concerning employees and its existing contracts to a new company.
Eden od vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije je po začasnem razkritju svojo celotno dejavnost, vključno z opremo, dovoljenji za uporabo pravic, obveznostmi v zvezi z zaposlenimi in svojimi obstoječimi pogodbami, prodal novi družbi.
As this change took place after the investigation period, it is not relevant for the injury assessment under Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.
Ta sprememba ni pomembna za oceno škode iz člena 6(1) osnovne uredbe, ker je do nje prišlo po obdobju preiskave.
In the absence of comments concerning the method of sampling, the provisional findings set out in recitals 7 to 13 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker v zvezi z metodo vzorčenja ni bilo pripomb, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 7 do 13 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
As set out in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014 (the investigation period).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 19 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajemala obdobje od 1. oktobra 2013 do 30. septembra 2014 („obdobje preiskave“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2011 to the end of the investigation period (the period considered).
Proučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2011 do konca obdobja preiskave („obravnavano obdobje“).
After provisional disclosure, the Russian authorities argued that as the investigation period also included data for the last quarter of 2013, the determination of trends in the injury analysis did not meet the requirement of the objectiveness laid down in Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.
Ruski organi so po začasnem razkritju trdili, da opredelitev trendov v analizi škode ne izpolnjuje zahteve po objektivnosti iz člena 3(2) osnovne uredbe, ker so se v obdobju preiskave upoštevali tudi podatki o zadnjem četrtletju leta 2013.
The investigation period was set in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.
Obdobje preiskave se je določilo v skladu s členom 6(1) osnovne uredbe.
In addition, the Commission relied on a sufficiently representative period of time for the examination of trends of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry i.e. the investigation period and 3 complete financial years prior to the investigation period.
Poleg tega je Komisija uporabila dovolj reprezentativno obdobje za proučitev trendov vseh pomembnih gospodarskih dejavnikov in kazalnikov, ki vplivajo na stanje industrije, tj. obdobje preiskave in tri polna poslovna leta pred obdobjem preiskave.
The fact that there is some overlapping between the investigation period and one of the years included in the period considered does not affect the objective determination of the injury carried out by the Commission.
Dejstvo, da obdobje preiskave sovpada z enim od let, ki jih zajema obravnavano obdobje, ne vpliva na objektivno opredelitev škode s strani Komisije.
As set out in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is aluminium foil of a thickness of not less than 0,008 mm and not more than 0,018 mm, not backed, not further worked than rolled, in rolls of a width not exceeding 650 mm and of a weight exceeding 10 kg (jumbo rolls) originating in Russia, currently falling within CN code ex76071119 (TARIC code 7607111910) (the product concerned).
Kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 20 začasne uredbe, je zadevni izdelek aluminijasta folija debeline najmanj 0,008 mm, vendar največ 0,018 mm, brez podlage, samo valjana, vendar dalje ne obdelana, v zvitkih, širokih do vključno 650 mm in z maso več kot 10 kg („veliki zvitki“), s poreklom iz Rusije, ki se trenutno uvršča pod oznako KN ex76071119 (oznaka TARIC 7607111910) („zadevni izdelek“).
The product concerned is commonly known as aluminium household foil (AHF).
Zadevni izdelek je splošno poznan kot gospodinjska aluminijasta folija („AHF“).
Following the provisional disclosure, several interested party claimed that the Russian imports did not compete with the AHF manufactured by the Union industry, however without further explaining this claim or substantiating it.
Več zainteresiranih strani je po začasnem razkritju trdilo, da ruski uvoz ni konkuriral AHF, ki jo je proizvedla industrija Unije, vendar te trditve niso nadalje pojasnile ali utemeljile.
In the absence of any other comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, the conclusions reached in recitals 21 to 28 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Drugih pripomb v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom ni bilo, zato se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 21 do 28 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
The details of the dumping calculation are set out in recitals 29 to 52 of the provisional Regulation.
Podrobni podatki o izračunu dampinga so navedeni v uvodnih izjavah 29 do 52 začasne uredbe.
Following the provisional disclosure, Rusal group contested the adjustments made to the export price as described in recitals 40 to 42 of the provisional Regulation.
Skupina Rusal je po začasnem razkritju nasprotovala prilagoditvam izvozne cene, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 40 do 42 začasne uredbe.
Rusal group claimed that deduction of sales, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit of the related trader are only warranted in case of delivery duty paid (DDP) transactions and not in case of delivery at place of destination (DAP) and cost, insurance and freight (CIF) transactions.
Trdila je, da je odštetje prodajnih, splošnih in administrativnih stroškov („PSA-stroški“) ter dobička povezanega trgovca upravičeno samo pri transakcijah s plačano dobavno dajatvijo, ne pa tudi pri transakcijah, povezanih z dobavo v namembni kraj, ter transakcijah, povezanih s stroški, zavarovanjem in prevoznino („CIF“).
In reply to this claim, it is noted that the Commission constructed the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation due to the existing association between the producers and their related trader.
V odgovor na to trditev je treba poudariti, da je Komisija zaradi obstoječe povezanosti med proizvajalci in njihovim povezanim trgovcem izvozno ceno konstruirala v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
The investigation showed that this association applies to all types of transactions regardless of their commercial terms.
Preiskava je pokazala, da ta povezanost velja za vse vrste transakcij, ne glede na njihove komercialne pogoje.
Moreover, Rusal group did not provide any evidence on why the profit margin used would not be reasonable.
Skupina Rusal prav tako ni zagotovila dokazov o tem, zakaj uporabljena stopnja dobička naj ne bi bila primerna.
The claims made in this regard are therefore considered unsubstantiated and should be rejected.
Zato se trditve v zvezi s tem štejejo za neutemeljene in bi jih bilo treba zavrniti.
With regard to SG&A expenses, it is the party claiming the excessiveness of the adjustment who shall provide specific evidence and calculations justifying its claim and, in particular, to give the alternative rate of adjustment that it suggests where applicable.
Kar zadeva PSA-stroške, mora stran, ki trdi, da je prilagoditev pretirana, zagotoviti posebne dokaze in izračune, ki upravičujejo njeno trditev, in po potrebi zlasti navesti predlagano alternativno stopnjo prilagoditve.
Rusal group however failed to provide any of this in its submission following the provisional disclosure.
Vendar skupina Rusal v svoji predložitvi po začasnem razkritju tega ni zagotovila.
On the basis of above, the claim of the exporting producer was rejected.
Na podlagi navedenega je bila trditev proizvajalca izvoznika zavrnjena.
Following the final disclosure Rusal group reiterated its disagreement concerning the adjustments made for SG&A and profit under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for DAP and CIF transactions.
Po dokončnem razkritju je skupina Rusal ponovno poudarila, da se ne strinja s prilagoditvami v zvezi s PSA-stroški in dobičkom iz člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe za transakcije v zvezi z dobavo v namembni kraj in CIF.
Rusal group is not contesting the application of Article 2(9) given the involvement of the related trader in all types of transactions (i.e. DDP, DAP and CIF).
Skupina Rusal ne nasprotuje uporabi člena 2(9), saj je povezani trgovec udeležen v vseh vrstah transakcij (tj. plačana dobavna dajatev, dobava v namembni kraj in CIF).
However, with regards to the transactions performed under CIF and DAP terms, Rusal group contests the applicability of the adjustments under the second and third subparagraph of Article 2(9), in particular SG&A and profit.
Vendar kar zadeva transakcije, izvedene pod pogoji CIF in dobave v namembni kraj, skupina Rusal nasprotuje uporabi prilagoditev iz drugega in tretjega pododstavka člena 2(9), zlasti v zvezi s PSA-stroški in dobičkom.
In its view, under CIF and DAP terms the delivery of the goods to the buyer is made prior to importation, and therefore these adjustments are not applicable.
Po njenem mnenju se pod pogoji CIF in dobave v namembni kraj kupcu blago dobavi pred uvozom, zato te prilagoditve ne veljajo.
In its submission Rusal group listed a number of cases where apparently the Commission did not make adjustments under Article 2(9).
V svoji predložitvi je naštela številne primere, iz katerih je razvidno, da Komisija ni izvedla prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(9).
Finally, the Rusal group claims that, in the alternative, should the Commission maintain that the application of Article 2(9) requires an automatic adjustment for reasonable SG&A costs and profit, then the Commission services should recognise that the trader was an integrated department of the exporting producer in CIF and DAP transactions, and consequently apply Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation to those transactions.
Skupina Rusal še trdi, da če bi Komisija podredno trdila, da uporaba člena 2(9) zahteva samodejno prilagoditev za razumne PSA-stroške in dobiček, bi morale službe Komisije prepoznati, da je bil trgovec interna služba proizvajalca izvoznika v transakcijah CIF in transakcijah v zvezi z dobavo v namembni kraj, ter zato pri teh transakcijah uporabiti člen 2(8) osnovne uredbe.
In reply to this, the Commission confirms that, in the case of Rusal an adjustment for a reasonable margin for SG&A and profits under the second and third subparagraph of Article 2(9) should be applied for all types of transactions.
Komisija v odgovor na to potrjuje, da bi bilo treba v primeru skupine Rusal prilagoditev razumne stopnje PSA-stroškov in dobička iz drugega in tretjega pododstavka člena 2(9) uporabiti za vse vrste transakcij.
Although the delivery of the goods for the CIF transactions is made prior to the release into free circulation of the goods and even if the responsibility for the customs clearance is on the buyer (as opposed to transactions under DDP terms), this does not change the fact that the sales are performed by the related trader which is bearing SG&A costs and which is normally seeking to make a profit for its services.
Čeprav se za transakcije CIF blago dobavi, preden se sprosti v prosti promet, in tudi če je za carinjenje odgovoren kupec (za razliko od transakcij pod pogoji plačane dobavne terjatve), to ne spremeni dejstva, da prodajo izvede povezani trgovec, ki nosi PSA-stroške in ki si običajno prizadeva ustvariti dobiček za svoje storitve.
In light of the fact that the trader is related to the exporting producer, Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation implies that the data of such trader is by definition unreliable and that its SG&A costs and profits should be established by the investigating authority on a reasonable basis.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je trgovec povezan s proizvajalcem izvoznikom, so podatki takega trgovca v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe že po definiciji nezanesljivi, pri čemer mora njegove PSA-stroške in dobiček preiskovalni organ opredeliti na razumni osnovi.
Besides, Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation does not preclude adjustments being made for costs incurred before importation, inasmuch as those costs are normally borne by the importer.
Poleg tega člen 2(9) osnovne uredbe ne izključuje prilagoditev za stroške, nastale pred uvozom, v kolikor navedene stroške običajno nosi uvoznik.
Therefore, the complete exclusion of adjustments for SG&A and profit for what concerns sales performed under CIF terms is not justifiable.
Zato popolna izključitev prilagoditev za PSA-stroške in dobiček, kar zadeva prodajo, izvedeno pod pogoji CIF, ni upravičena.
Indeed, the fact that the related company performs only certain functions does not prevent the Commission from making the adjustments under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation but could be reflected in a lower amount of SG&A to be deducted from the price at which the product concerned is first resold to an independent buyer.
Dejstvo, da povezana družba izvaja le določene funkcije, dejansko ne preprečuje Komisiji, da bi izvedla prilagoditve v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe, vendar se to lahko odraža v nižjem znesku PSA-stroškov, ki se odštejejo od cene, po kateri je zadevni izdelek prvič preprodan neodvisnemu kupcu.
In any event, the interested party who intends to dispute the extent of the adjustments made on the basis of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation has a burden of proof.
Vsekakor dokazno breme nosi zainteresirana stran, ki namerava izpodbijati obseg prilagoditev, izvedenih na podlagi člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
Hence, if this party deems the adjustments to be excessive it must supply specific evidence and calculations justifying those claims.
Če torej ta stran meni, da so prilagoditve pretirane, mora zagotoviti natančne dokaze in izračune, ki upravičujejo njeno trditev.
As regards DAP transactions, it should be mentioned that the places of delivery are well inside the EU customs territory and therefore the difference with respect to the degree of involvement of the trader as compared to sales under DDP terms is even smaller.
Kar zadeva transakcije v zvezi z dobavo v namembni kraj, bi bilo treba navesti, da so kraji dobave znotraj carinskega območja EU, zato je razlika v stopnji vključenosti trgovca v primerjavi s prodajo pod pogoji plačane dobavne terjatve še manjša.
As for the past cases mentioned by the Rusal group it is important to note first that the Commission's position is in line with the case-law of the Union Courts.
V zvezi s preteklimi primeri, ki jih navaja skupina Rusal, je treba upoštevati, da je stališče Komisije v skladu s sodno prakso sodišč Unije.
Second, the Commission enjoys a wide discretion in the sphere of measures to protect trade and, when exercising that discretion, is not bound by its past assessments.
Komisija ima poleg tega široko diskrecijsko pravico na področju ukrepov za zaščito trgovine in pri izvajanju te pravice ni vezana na svoje pretekle ocene.
In any event, the factual situation in each of the cases referred to by the Rusal group differed.
Vsekakor je bila dejanska situacija v vsakem od primerov, ki jih je navedla skupina Rusal, različna.
As regards finally the alternative claim to apply Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the Commission refers to the reasoning in this recital and in recital 19 and reiterates that the mere fact of association between the exporter and the related company is enough to enable the Commission to treat the actual export prices as unreliable because the existence of association between the exporter and related company is one of a number of reasons for which the actual export prices may be regarded as unreliable.
Kar zadeva podredno trditev za uporabo člena 2(8) osnovne uredbe, se Komisija sklicuje na utemeljitev v tej uvodni izjavi in uvodni izjavi 19 ter ponovno poudarja, da je že samo dejstvo povezanosti med izvoznikom in povezano družbo dovolj, da Komisija obravnava dejanske izvozne cene kot nezanesljive, saj je obstoj povezanosti med izvoznikom in povezano družbo eden izmed več razlogov, zaradi katerih je mogoče dejanske izvozne cene šteti za nezanesljive.
Concerning the quantification of the adjustment for SG&A, following the receipt of comments to the provisional disclosure, the Commission invited Rusal group to identify the part of SG&A that they considered not-applicable or unreasonable for CIF and DAP transactions and to provide evidence thereof as required by case-law.
Kar pa zadeva količinsko opredelitev prilagoditve za PSA-stroške, je Komisija po prejetju pripomb o začasnem razkritju skupino Rusal pozvala, naj opredeli del PSA-stroškov, ki je po njenem mnenju neveljaven ali nerazumen za transakcije CIF in transakcije v zvezi z dobavo v namembni kraj, ter o tem zagotovi dokaze, kot to zahteva sodna praksa.
However, no evidence was provided in this respect because Rusal group conditioned the submission of any information upon the Commission's acceptance of its legal interpretation of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Vendar v zvezi s tem dokazi niso bili predloženi, ker je skupina Rusal za predložitev kakršnih koli informacij postavila pogoj, da Komisija sprejme njeno pravno razlago člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of any element provided by the Rusal group in this respect, the claim should be rejected.
Ker skupina Rusal v zvezi s tem ni predložila nobenega dokaza, bi bilo treba trditev zavrniti.
In the absence of any further comment, the provisional findings as set out in recitals 29 to 52 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed and the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, remain unchanged:
Ker dodatnih pripomb ni bilo, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 29 do 52 začasne uredbe potrdijo, pri čemer se dokončne stopnje dampinga, izražene v odstotku cene CIF meja Unije brez plačane dajatve, ne spremenijo:
The change mentioned in recital 9 above did not affect the definition of the Union industry.
Sprememba, navedena v uvodni izjavi 9, ni vplivala na opredelitev pojma industrija Unije.
In the absence of any comments with respect to the definition of the Union industry and Union production, the conclusions set out in recitals 53 to 55 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker pripomb glede opredelitve pojmov industrija Unije in proizvodnja Unije ni bilo, se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 53 do 55 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In the absence of any comments with regard to Union consumption, the conclusions set out in recitals 56 to 60 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker pripomb glede potrošnje Unije ni bilo, se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 56 do 60 začasne uredbe potrdijo.