natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the adjustment was calculated on the basis of data that were provided by the company in its questionnaire reply.
Komisija zato ni imela razloga za spremembo svoje metodologije in uporabo javno dostopne obrestne mere Evropske centralne banke pri izračunu stroškov kredita, kot je zahteval proizvajalec izvoznik.
No evidence was provided as to why this data could not be used.
Ni bilo dokazano, da je bila to obrestna mera, uporabljena za njegov subjekt v Španiji.
The Commission saw therefore no reason to change its methodology and to apply the publicly available rate of the European Central Bank in the calculation of the credit costs, as was requested by the exporting producer.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
It was not demonstrated that this was the rate which applied to its entity in Spain.
V začasni uredbi stroški predelave za gole cevi, ki jih predeluje povezana družba v Italiji enega od proizvajalcev izvoznikov, niso bili odšteti iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah (40) in (41) začasne uredbe.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
Po začasnem in dokončnem razkritju je pritožnik trdil, da bi morala Komisija odšteti stroške predelave za to povezano družbo v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe iz dveh glavnih razlogov.
In the provisional Regulation, the processing costs for bare pipes processed by a related company in Italy of one of the exporting producers were not deducted for the reasons set out in recitals 40 and 41 of the provisional Regulation.
Prvič, da bi bilo to v skladu z odbitkom stroškov predelave, ki jih je ustvarila povezana družba v Združenem kraljestvu in so povezani s prirobnicami (uvodna izjava (42) začasne uredbe).
After provisional and definitive disclosure, the complainant argued that the Commission should have deducted the processing costs for this related company under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for two main reasons.
Drugič, ker je Komisija v prejšnjih primerih odštela stroške predelave, tudi če so bili ti stroški v Uniji višji od tistih, nastalih v državi porekla.
First, in order to be consistent with the deduction of the processing costs incurred by a related company in the UK related to flanges (recital 42 of the provisional Regulation).
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (13) do (17), so gole cevi izključene iz obsega izdelka.
Second, because the Commission has deducted processing costs in previous cases, even when the processing costs in the Union were higher than those incurred in the country of origin.
Tako je Komisija iz izračuna izvozne cene izključila vso prodajo, povezane z golimi cevmi, ki se nadalje predelujejo v Uniji.
As specified in recitals 13 to 17 above, bare pipes are excluded from the product scope.
Zato je pritožnikova trditev brezpredmetna in se posledično zavrne.
The Commission excluded accordingly all sales related to bare pipes further processed in the Union from the calculation of the export price.
V začasni uredbi (glej uvodni izjavi (42) in (43) začasne uredbe) so se pri določanju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe odšteli stroški predelave povezanih družb v Združenem kraljestvu obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, povezani z dodajanjem prirobnic in rezanjem cevi na manjše velikosti.
Consequently, the complainant's claim is without object and is therefore rejected.
Po začasnem in dokončnem razkritju je družba Jindal trdila, da bi se morale cevi s prirobnico, ki jih prodaja njena povezana družba s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, izključiti iz zadevnega izdelka in s tem iz izračuna stopnje dampinga družbe.
In the provisional Regulation (see recitals 42 and 43 thereof), the processing costs of the related companies in the UK of both exporting producers linked to adding flanges and cutting the pipes into smaller sizes were deducted when establishing the export price in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Komisiji se iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah (19) in (20), ni zdelo primerno izključiti cevi s prirobnico iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka.
Following provisional and definitive disclosure, Jindal requested that the flanged pipes sold by its UK based related company should be excluded from the product concerned and, as a result, from the calculation of the company's dumping margin.
Vendar so bile cevi s prirobnico, ki so predstavljale le majhen del celotne prodaje povezanih uvoznikov, izključene iz določanja izvozne cene.
For the reasons set out in recitals 19 and 20 above, the Commission did not consider appropriate to exclude flanged pipes from the definition of the product concerned.
Po začasnem razkritju je družba Jindal trdila, da je bil odbitek PSA-stroškov in dobička pri določanju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe za njeni povezani družbi v Italiji in Združenem kraljestvu nerazumen, saj naj bi bili očitno pretirani.
The flanged pipes, which constituted only a small part of the total sales of the related importers, were, however, excluded from the determination of the export price.
Družba je ponovila svojo trditev po dokončnem razkritju, vendar ni predložila novih dokazov.
After provisional disclosure, Jindal argued that the deduction of the SG&A costs and profit in the determination of the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation for its related companies in Italy and the UK was unreasonable as these items were allegedly manifestly excessive.
Trdila je naslednje.
After definitive disclosure, the company reiterated its claim without, however, providing new evidence.
Prvič, na PSA-stroške naj bi vplivale dejavnosti predelave obeh povezanih družb v Uniji.
It made the following claim.
Družba je namesto tega predlagala uporabo PSA-stroškov, ki jih je sporočila njena povezana družba v Španiji, ki v obdobju preiskave ni bila vključena v dejavnosti predelave.
First, SG&A costs were said to be impacted by the processing activities of the two related companies in the Union.
Drugič, družba je kot drugo možnost tudi predlagala, naj se izključijo posebni stroški, ki jih je ustvarila povezana družba v Italiji ter ki so vključeni v PSA-stroške, specifične za dejavnosti predelave, in stroške dejavnosti izvoza v tretje države.
The company suggested using instead the SG&A costs reported by its related company in Spain, which was not involved in processing activities during the IP.
V ta namen je predložila dodatne podatke.
Second, the company also proposed as another option to exclude specific costs incurred by the related company in Italy contained in the SG&A costs which were specific to processing activities and costs related to exporting activities to third countries.
Komisija je te podatke preverila med drugim preveritvenim obiskom povezane družbe v Italiji.
For this purpose, it submitted additional data.
Za povezano družbo v Združenem kraljestvu take informacije niso bile predložene, vendar se je sklepalo, da bi bilo treba za prilagoditev izvozne cene uporabiti enak znesek popravljenih PSA-stroškov kot za italijansko povezano družbo.
This data was verified by the Commission during a second verification visit to the related company in Italy.
Komisija je zavrnila prvo trditev, saj se ji je zdelo primerno, da se pri konstruiranju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe uporabijo dejanski PSA-stroški vsake povezane družbe.
No such information was provided for the related company in the UK, but it was inferred that the same amount of corrected SG&A costs as for the Italian related company should be applied for the purpose of adjusting the export price.
Prav tako ni razumela, zakaj se uporaba dejanskih stroškov kot izhodišča ne more šteti za razumno podlago.
The Commission rejected the first claim as it considered appropriate that the actual SG&A costs borne by each related company should be used when constructing the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Kar zadeva drugo možnost, se je Komisiji zdela upravičena, saj je bila prodaja predelanega blaga v Uniji pri obeh trgovcih izključena iz določitve izvozne cene.
The Commission failed to see why taking the actual costs as a starting point cannot be considered as a reasonable basis.
S tem je bila upravičena tudi razdelitev stroškov za izključitev stroškov, povezanih z dejavnostmi predelave.
Regarding the second option, the Commission considered it justified since for both traders the sales of the processed goods in the Union were excluded from the export price determination.
Poleg tega se je Komisija na podlagi drugega preveritvenega obiska, med katerim se je preverila dodatna razčlenitev PSA-stroškov, sporočenih za povezano družbo v Italiji, strinjala, da so nekateri stroški povezani izključno s predelavo golih cevi (ki so izključene iz obsega izdelka, kot je navedeno zgoraj).
This also justified a division of costs in order to exclude costs related to processing activities.
Zato PSA-stroški, povezani z dejavnostmi predelave, niso bili upoštevani pri konstruiranju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, on the basis of the second verification visit during which the additional breakdown of SG&A costs provided for the related company in Italy was verified, the Commission accepted some of the costs as being related exclusively to processing of bare pipes (which are excluded from the product scope as mentioned above).
V zvezi s povezano družbo v Združenem kraljestvu niso bili izvedeni nadaljnji popravki PSA-stroškov, saj družba po začasnem razkritju ni predložila dodatne razčlenitve takih stroškov.
The SG&A costs related to processing activities were thus not taken into account in the construction of the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Vsi stroški, povezani z dejavnostmi izvoza v tretje države, so bili že v začasni fazi odšteti za vse povezane družbe v Uniji.
Regarding the related company in the UK, no further corrections of SG&A costs were made, as the company did not provide after provisional disclosure any additional breakdown of such costs.
Po dokončnem razkritju je družba Jindal trdila, da se je struktura njene skupine po obdobju preiskave spremenila ter da izvoz ne poteka več prek njenih povezanih uvoznikov v Združenem kraljestvu in Španiji.
Finally, all costs related to exports activities to third countries were already deducted at provisional stage for all related companies in the Union.
Vendar domnevne spremembe strukture skupine po obdobju preiskave ne morejo vplivati na stopnje dampinga, ki so bile ugotovljene na podlagi preverjenih podatkov v zvezi z obdobjem preiskave.
After definitive disclosure, Jindal argued that its group structure changed after the IP and that exports are no longer made via its related importers in the UK and in Spain.
Zato je bil ta argument zavrnjen.
However, alleged changes in the group structure after the IP cannot have an impact on the dumping margins, which were established based on verified data concerning the IP.
Po začasnem in dokončnem razkritju je isti proizvajalec izvoznik tudi trdil, da je Komisija uporabila drugačen pristop ob upoštevanju prilagoditve PSA-stroškov po eni strani in dobička po drugi strani.
Accordingly, this argument was rejected.
Pri prilagoditvi PSA-stroškov je Komisija uporabila dejanske nastale PSA-stroške, medtem ko so bili za prilagoditev dobička dejanski zneski nadomeščeni s teoretičnimi.
After provisional and definitive disclosure, the same exporting producer also argued that the Commission adopted a different approach with respect to the adjustment for SG&A, on the one hand, and for profit, on the other hand.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (43) začasne uredbe, je bil zato, ker ni bilo ustreznega merila, uporabljen 3,7-odstotni povprečni dobiček, ki se je štel za razumno stopnjo dobička nepovezanega uvoznika.
This related company was, however, lossmaking in the IP.
Po začasnem razkritju je tudi družba ECL trdila, da se pri konstruiranju izvozne cene ne bi smeli odšteti vsi PSA-stroški njenih povezanih družb v Uniji.
So there was no actual profit margin which could be used.
Družba je trdila, da njene podružnice v Uniji opravljajo vlogo uvoznika in oddelka za trženje proizvajalca izvoznika.
As set out in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation, in the absence of any reasonable benchmark an average profit of 3,7 % was used, which was considered a reasonable level of profit of an unrelated importer.
Navedla je, da bi bilo treba pri konstruiranju izvozne cene odšteti samo tiste PSA-stroške povezanih družb v Uniji, ki so povezani z njihovimi dejavnostmi, ki jih opravljajo kot izvozniki.
The Commission considered the use of this level of profit more accurate than any use of a level of profit of a related importer, if such profit level should have been available.
Družba je ponovila svojo trditev po dokončnem razkritju, vendar ni predložila novih dokazov.
After provisional disclosure, ECL also submitted a claim that the full SG&A costs of its related companies in the Union should not be deducted in the context of the export price construction.
Komisija je zavrnila to trditev iz naslednjih razlogov.
The company claimed that its subsidiaries in the Union perform the role of an importer as well as those of the marketing division of the exporting producer.
Prvič, proizvajalec izvoznik je v obdobju preiskave tudi neposredno izvažal v Unijo, čeprav le v majhnih količinah, in ne le prek svojih povezanih družb.
It submitted that only those SG&A expenses of the related companies in the Union which related to their activities as importers should be deducted in the construction of the export price.
Poleg tega je bilo v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da je proizvajalec izvoznik kril tudi stroške v Indiji, povezane z izvozom v Unijo (npr. stroške osebja za izvoz v Unijo in druge PSA-stroške).
The claim was resubmitted after definitive disclosure, without, however, providing new elements.
To je pokazalo, da so bili dejavnosti izvoza in povezani stroški družbe razdeljeni med matično družbo in njene povezane družbe v Uniji.
The Commission rejected this claim for the following reasons.
Po dokončnem razkritju je družba trdila, da so glavne dejavnosti trženja izvajale povezane družbe v Uniji, ki so posledično krile tudi povezane stroške.
First, during the IP the exporting producer also directly exported to the Union, although only in small quantities, and not only via its related companies.
Vendar to ni v nasprotju z oceno Komisije, saj je družba priznala, da je nekatere stroške, povezane z izvozom v Unijo, krila tudi matična družba.
In addition, the investigation revealed that the exporting producer has also borne costs in India related to the export sales to the Union (e.g. personnel dedicated to the export sales to the Union and other SG&A costs).
Zato je bil argument, da so bile povezane družbe v Uniji oddelki za trženje matične družbe, zavrnjen.
This showed that the exporting activities and the related costs of the company were shared between the mother company and its related companies in the Union.
Drugič, trženje, oglaševanje in druge dejavnosti, povezane z iskanjem strank v Uniji, so dejavnosti, ki jih običajno izvaja uvoznik, ta pa navadno krije tudi stroške, povezane s temi dejavnostmi.
After definitive disclosure, the company argued that the main marketing functions were carried out by the related companies in the Union and, subsequently, the related costs were borne by them.
Ti stroški so zlasti del stroškov, povezanih s prodajo izdelka.
This does, however, not contradict the Commission's assessment as the company acknowledged that certain costs related to the export sales to the Union were also borne by the mother company.
Poleg tega stroški, ki jih je družba dodelila dejavnostim izvoza, ne bi nastali, če se zadevni izdelek ne bi uvažal v Unijo.
Therefore, the argument that the related companies in the Union were the marketing departments of the mother company was rejected.
Zato razlikovanje proizvajalca izvoznika med dejavnostmi izvoza in uvoza ni bilo utemeljeno ter bi ga bilo prav tako treba zavrniti.
Second, marketing, advertising and other activities related to finding customers in the Union are activities typically carried out by an importer and the costs associated to them are normally borne by the latter.
Vendar so bili stroški povezanih družb v Uniji, povezani z izvozom zadevnega izdelka ali drugih izdelkov v tretje države, že odšteti od PSA-stroškov subjektov.
In particular, these costs are part of the costs related to the sales of a product.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, je Komisija potrdila uvodne izjave (33) do (48) začasne uredbe.
Furthermore, the costs assigned by the company to the activities of exporting would not have been incurred in the absence of importation of the product concerned into the Union.
Primerjava
Therefore, the distinction between the export and import activities made by the exporting producer was not justified and should also be rejected.
Po začasnem razkritju je družba ECL trdila, da se stroški kredita med družbami, tj. stroški kredita med matično družbo v Indiji in njenimi povezanimi družbami v Uniji, v skladu s členom 2(10)(g) osnovne uredbe ne bi smeli odšteti, saj Komisija ni sprejela transferne cene med proizvajalcem izvoznikom in njegovimi povezanimi družbami v EU.
Nevertheless, the costs borne by the related companies in the Union related to exports of the product concerned or other products to third countries were already deducted from the entities' SG&A costs.
Poleg tega je Komisija pri določanju izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe že odštela stroške kredita povezanih družb v Uniji, povezane z njihovo prodajo neodvisnim strankam.
In the absence of other comments, the Commission confirmed recitals 33 to 48 of the provisional Regulation.
Ta trditev je bila sprejeta.
Comparison
Isti proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi trdil, da bi bilo treba od normalne vrednosti v skladu s členom 2(10)(b) osnovne uredbe odšteti znesek, ki ustreza shemi za povračilo dajatev in shemi usmeritve v izdelek, da se zagotovi poštena primerjava med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno.
Following provisional disclosure, ECL submitted that intra-company credit costs, that is credit costs between the mother company in India and its related companies in the Union, should not have been deducted under Article 2(10)(g) of the basic Regulation since the Commission did not accept the transfer price between the exporting producer and its related companies in the EU.
Prvič, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (53) začasne uredbe, prilagoditve za povračilo dajatev niso bile izvedene, saj proizvajalca izvoznika nista dokazala, da je neplačani ali vrnjeni davek na izvoz vključen v domačo ceno.
Also, the Commission already deducted the credit costs of the related companies in the Union which related to their sales to independent customers when establishing the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
To je bilo potrjeno tudi v vzporedni protisubvencijski preiskavi [8], kjer je bilo ugotovljeno, da tako imenovana „shema za povračilo dajatev“ in „shema usmeritve v izdelek“ pomenita subvencije v obliki finančnega prispevka indijske vlade ter ju ni mogoče šteti za dovoljeni sistem povračila dajatev ali sistem nadomestnega povračila.
This claim was accepted.
Po dokončnem razkritju je isti proizvajalec izvoznik znova trdil, da bi bilo treba od normalne vrednosti odšteti shemo za povračilo dajatev in shemo usmeritve v izdelek.
The same exporting producer also claimed that an amount equal to the Duty Drawback Scheme and the Focus Product Scheme should be deducted from the normal value under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation in order to ensure a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price.
Vendar v zvezi s tem ni navedel nobenega novega dejstva ali argumenta.
First, as indicated in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation, no adjustment was made for duty drawback since the exporting producers failed to prove that the tax not paid or refunded on export sales is included in the domestic price.
Zato je Komisija zavrnila to trditev.
This was also confirmed in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation [8] where it was established that the so-called ‘Duty Drawback Scheme’ and the ‘Focus Product Scheme’ constitute subsidies in the form of financial contribution by the Government of India and cannot be considered permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system.
Po začasnem in dokončnem razkritju je pritožnik znova trdil, da bi morala Komisija uporabiti izredno metodologijo ciljno usmerjenega dampinga, določeno v drugem stavku člena 2(11) osnovne uredbe.
After definitive disclosure, the same exporting producer reiterated its claim that the Duty Drawback Scheme and the Focus Product Scheme should be deducted from the normal value.
Komisija ni odkrila novih dejstev, na podlagi katerih bi lahko odstopala od svoje začasne ocene, da uporaba metodologije ciljno usmerjenega dampinga ni upravičena.
However, it did not provide any new factual elements or arguments in this respect.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav (49) do (54) začasne uredbe potrjeni.
Therefore, the Commission rejected this claim.
Stopnje dampinga
After provisional and definitive disclosure, the complainant reiterated its claim that the Commission should apply the exceptional methodology of targeted dumping laid down in the second sentence of Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.
Po začasnem razkritju je družba ECL trdila, da so vrednosti CIF, uporabljene za izračun stopnje dampinga in stopnje škode, neskladne.
The Commission did not establish any new elements which would allow it to divert from its provisional assessment that the application of the methodology of targeted dumping was unwarranted.
Zlasti je trdila, da bi morala biti vrednost CIF, uporabljena kot imenovalec za izračun stopnje dampinga za družbo ECL, enaka vrednosti CIF, ki se je uporabila za izračun stopnje škode in ki izraža konstruirano izvozno ceno na ravni CIF.
In the absence of any other comments, the conclusions reached in recitals 49 to 54 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
Komisija je menila, da bi moral biti imenovalec za izračune stopnje dampinga dejanska cena CIF meja Unije, po kateri je bilo blago prijavljeno carinskim organom Unije.
Dumping margins
Ta metodologija zagotavlja, da se stopnja dampinga izračuna kot delež dejanske cene CIF meja Unije in da carinski organi Unije poberejo protidampinško dajatev na podlagi te dejanske cene CIF meja Unije.
After provisional disclosure, ECL claimed that the CIF values used for dumping and injury margin calculations were inconsistent.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
In particular, the company argued that the CIF value used as the denominator for the dumping margin calculation for ECL should be the same CIF value which was used for the purpose of the injury margin calculation and which reflects the constructed export price at CIF level.
Poleg tega so bile izvozne cene na ravni meja Unije, uporabljene v izračunih dampinga in škode, konstruirane v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission considered that the denominator for the dumping margin calculations should be the actual CIF Union frontier price at which a good has been declared to the Union customs authorities.
Metodologija, uporabljena pri izračunu dampinga in izračunu škode, je zato skladna.
This methodology ensures that the dumping margin is calculated as a percentage of the actual CIF Union frontier price and also ensures that the anti-dumping duty is collected by the Union customs authorities on the basis of this actual CIF Union frontier price.
Vendar to ne izključuje dejstva, da mora biti končna dajatev izražena kot delež vrednosti CIF, kot je sporočena carinskim organom.
Consequently, this claim was rejected.
Po dokončnem razkritju je pritožnik trdil, da je primerjava stopenj dampinga in stopenj škode obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov razkrila nepravilnost, saj je bila pri enem od njiju stopnja dampinga nižja in stopnja škode višja, medtem ko je bilo pri drugem proizvajalcu izvozniku ravno obratno.
In addition, in both the dumping and the injury calculations the export prices, at Union frontier level, used were the ones that were constructed pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Ta razlika je posledica dejstva, da sta bili izvozna cena in normalna vrednost iz prej pojasnjenih razlogov (v veliki meri) konstruirani za oba proizvajalca izvoznika.