natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regard the imports from the PRC, after provisional disclosure it was found that small corrections had to be made to the level of the undercutting of the Chinese imports as stated in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation due to a clerical error.
Kar zadeva uvoz iz LRK, se je po začasnem razkritju ugotovilo, da je treba zaradi pisne napake nekoliko popraviti raven nelojalnega znižanja cen zaradi kitajskega uvoza, ki je navedena v uvodni izjavi 118 začasne uredbe.
After correction, it was found that the average price of total volume of imports from the PRC to the Union in the investigation period was undercutting the Union industry prices by 10,2 % instead of 13 % as stated in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation.
Po popravku je bilo ugotovljeno, da je povprečna cena celotnega obsega uvoza iz LRK v Unijo v obdobju preiskave cene industrije Unije namesto za 13 %, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 118 začasne uredbe, nelojalno znižala za 10,2 %.
In addition, as explained in recital 118 of the provisional Regulation, the import volume from the PRC decreased by [47 %-57 %] with a corresponding decrease in market share from 4 % to 2 %, during the period considered while the prices of these imports undercut the prices of Union industry by 10,2 %.
Poleg tega, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 118 začasne uredbe, se je obseg uvoza iz LRK zmanjšal za [47 %–57 %] z ustreznim zmanjšanjem tržnega deleža v obravnavanem obdobju s 4 % na 2 %, medtem ko so cene tega uvoza nelojalno znižale cene industrije Unije za 10,2 %.
On this basis, the Commission concluded in recital 121 of the provisional Regulation that Chinese imports contributed in part to the injury suffered by the Union industry, while they did not break the causal link between the dumped imports from Russia and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija v uvodni izjavi 121 začasne uredbe sklenila, da je škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, delno povzročil kitajski uvoz, pri čemer se ni prekinila vzročna zveza med dampinškim uvozom iz Rusije in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
Since the market share of the Chinese imports was low and showed a decreasing trend during the period considered, these imports could not have exerted a significant price pressure on the Union producers to prevent them from increasing prices to profitable levels.
Ker je bil v obravnavanem obdobju tržni delež kitajskega uvoza nizek in je kazal padajoči trend, ta uvoz ni mogel izvajati znatnega pritiska na cene proizvajalcev Unije, da bi jim s tem preprečil zvišanje cen na dobičkonosne ravni.
The conclusion that the Chinese imports did not break the causal link between the dumped Russian imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry as per recital 121 of the provisional Regulation is thus confirmed.
Sklep, da kitajski uvoz ni prekinil vzročne zveze med dampinškim ruskim uvozom in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 121 začasne uredbe, se torej potrdi.
Regarding imports from Turkey, as explained in recital 119 of the provisional Regulation, they showed an increasing trend during the period considered and reached a market share of 13 % in the investigation period due to a higher demand on the Union market, which Union producers were not able to satisfy as explained in recital 35.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 119 začasne uredbe, je uvoz iz Turčije v obravnavanem obdobju pokazal naraščajoči trend in je v obdobju preiskave dosegel 13-odstotni tržni delež zaradi večjega povpraševanja na trgu Unije, ki ga proizvajalci Unije, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 35, niso mogli zadovoljiti.
However, Turkish import prices even though they decreased by 13 % over the period considered, were at similar levels as the Union industry's prices and significantly above the price level of the Russian imports.
Vendar so bile turške uvozne cene, čeprav so se v obravnavanem obdobju znižale za 13 %, podobne ravnem cen industrije Unije in znatno nad ravnjo cen ruskega uvoza.
Even if the market share of the Turkish imports had an increasing trend, given their similar levels to the Union industry's prices (sometimes even higher), they could not have exerted a significant price pressure on the Union producers to prevent them from increasing their prices to profitable levels.
Čeprav se je tržni delež turškega uvoza povečal, ta uvoz zaradi ravni cen, podobnih cenam industrije Unije (včasih celo višjih), ni mogel izvajati znatnega pritiska na cene proizvajalcev Unije, da bi jim s tem preprečil zvišanje cen na dobičkonosne ravni.
Consequently, the conclusion that Turkish imports did not break the link between the dumped Russian imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry is hereby confirmed.
Zato se sklep, da turški uvoz ni prekinil vzročne zveze med dampinškim ruskim uvozom in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, potrdi.
Following final disclosure, one interested party reiterated its claim from the provisional stage that the Commission did not separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the imports from Turkey.
Po dokončnem razkritju je ena zainteresirana stran ponovila svojo trditev iz začasne faze, da Komisija ni opredelila in ločila škodljivih učinkov uvoza iz Turčije.
It also claimed that the increasing volume of Turkish imports injured the Union industry in terms of market share and capacity utilisation and therefore allegedly broke the causal link between the imports from Russia and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Trdila je tudi, da je povečanje obsega turškega uvoza povzročilo škodo industriji Unije v smislu tržnega deleža in izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti, zato je domnevno prekinilo vzročno zvezo med uvozom iz Rusije in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
It is correct that the market share of the Turkish imports increased during the period considered while the market share of the Union industry decreased.
Drži, da se je tržni delež turškega uvoza v obravnavanem obdobju povečal, medtem ko se je tržni delež industrije Unije zmanjšal.
However, the Turkish imports represented a market share of 13 % in the investigation period while the market share of the Russian imports was 34 %.
Vendar je tržni delež turškega uvoza v obdobju preiskave znašal 13 %, tržni delež ruskega uvoza pa 34 %.
In addition, the Turkish prices were at the same level as the prices of the Union industry while the Russian imports were undercutting the Union industry prices by [3 %-7 %].
Poleg tega so bile ravni turških cen enake kot ravni cen industrije Unije, medtem ko je ruski uvoz nelojalno nižal cene industrije Unije za [3 %–7 %].
In addition, it is highlighted that it is not sustainable for a loss making industry, such as the AHF industry, to continuously increase its volume of sales while incurring losses in the same time.
Poleg tega se poudarja, da za industrijo, ki ustvarja izgubo, kot je industrija AHF, ni trajnostno, da nenehno povečuje svoj obseg prodaje in hkrati ustvarja izgubo.
The industry needs first to increase its prices above cost-covering levels before increasing even more its volume of sales.
Industrija mora najprej svoje cene zvišati na raven pokrivanja stroškov in šele nato še bolj povečati svoj obseg prodaje.
However, this was not possible due to the price pressure exerted by the dumped imports from Russia in significant volumes.
Vendar to zaradi cenovnega pritiska znatnega obsega dampinškega uvoza iz Rusije ni bilo mogoče.
Therefore, the claim that the Turkish imports broke the causal link between the imports from Russia and the material injury suffered by the Union industry was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev, da je turški uvoz prekinil vzročno zvezo med uvozom iz Rusije in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, zavrnjena.
It was further claimed that the Turkish import prices are higher than the Russian import prices as the Turkish producers specialise and focus their exports to the Union market on thinner foil between 0,008-0,009 mm which the Russian producer does not export to the Union market.
Nadalje se je trdilo, da so cene turškega uvoza višje od cen ruskega uvoza, saj je izvoz turških proizvajalcev na trg Unije specializiran za in osredotočen na tanjšo folijo debeline 0,008–0,009 mm, ki je ruski proizvajalec ne izvaža na trg Unije.
This claim was not supported by any evidence and therefore it was rejected.
Ta trditev ni bila podprta z dokazi, zato je bila zavrnjena.
As concerns the imports from the remaining third countries, their volume decreased between 2011 and 2013 by [20 %-39 %] and then increased by [2 %-15 %] at the end of the investigation period.
Kar zadeva uvoz iz preostalih tretjih držav, se je njegov obseg med letoma 2011 in 2013 zmanjšal za [20 %–39 %], nato pa se je ob koncu obdobja preiskave povečal za [2 %–15 %].
As explained in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation, their market share decreased from 4 % in 2011 to 2 % in 2013 and then increased to 4 % at the end of the investigation period.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 120 začasne uredbe, se je njegov tržni delež zmanjšal s 4 % leta 2011 na 2 % leta 2013, nato pa se je ob koncu obdobja preiskave povečal na 4 %.
As also outlined in the same recital of the provisional Regulation their prices were at lower levels than the Union industry's sales prices, with the exception of 2012, but higher than the Russian import prices throughout the period considered.
V isti uvodni izjavi začasne uredbe je navedeno še, da so bile njegove cene v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju nižje od prodajnih cen industrije Unije, razen leta 2012, vendar so bile višje od cen ruskega uvoza.
Therefore, imports from other third countries could not have exerted such a significant price pressure on the Union producers as to prevent them from increasing the prices to profitable levels.
Uvoz iz drugih tretjih držav torej ni mogel izvajati tako znatnega pritiska na cene proizvajalcev Unije, da bi jim s tem preprečil zvišanje cen na dobičkonosne ravni.
Consequently, the conclusion that the imports from other third countries did not break the causal link between the dumped Russian imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry is hereby confirmed.
Zato se sklep, da uvoz iz drugih tretjih držav ni prekinil vzročne zveze med dampinškim ruskim uvozom in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, potrdi.
In the absence of any other comments the conclusions reached in recitals 117 to 122 of the provisional Regulation were therefore confirmed.
Drugih pripomb ni bilo, zato so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 117 do 122 začasne uredbe potrjeni.
Development of Union consumption
Gibanje potrošnje Unije
Following provisional disclosure, two interested parties claimed that the Union industry failed to meet the growing consumption in spite of the investments made to increase production capacity, which allegedly caused the material injury suffered.
Po začasnem razkritju sta dve zainteresirani strani trdili, da industrija Unije kljub naložbam v povečanje proizvodne zmogljivosti ni zadovoljila vedno večje potrošnje, kar naj bi povzročilo znatno škodo.
Firstly, the party did not explain how an increase in consumption in the Union as such could have had a negative impact on the Union industry and thus break the causal link between the dumped imports from Russia and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Prvič, stran ni pojasnila, kako bi lahko povečanje potrošnje v Uniji kot tako negativno vplivalo na industrijo Unije in s tem prekinilo vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom iz Rusije in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
To the contrary, under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, the Union industry could reasonably be expected to benefit from the increase in consumption.
Nasprotno, v običajnih konkurenčnih pogojih, tj. ob odsotnosti dampinškega uvoza, bi se lahko razumno pričakovalo, da bo imela industrija Unije koristi od povečanja potrošnje.
Secondly, the Russian imports were able to increase their market share by 5 percentage points, while the Union producers lost 8 percentage points of their market share, i.e. it decreased from 55 % to 47 % in the period considered.
Drugič, ruski uvoz je lahko svoj tržni delež povečal za 5 odstotnih točk, medtem ko so proizvajalci Unije izgubili 8 odstotnih točk svojega tržnega deleža, tj. v obravnavanem obdobju se je zmanjšal s 55 % na 47 %.
In addition, as explained in recital 78 of the provisional Regulation, the Union producers made efforts to increase production capacity but this was limited by their difficult financial situation.
Poleg tega je v uvodni izjavi 78 začasne uredbe pojasnjeno, da so si proizvajalci Unije prizadevali povečati proizvodno zmogljivost, vendar jih je pri tem omejeval njihov težavni finančni položaj.
The relatively low level of investments was due to the difficult financial situation of the Union industry, which in itself was caused by the dumped imports.
Sorazmerno nizka raven naložb je bila posledica težavnega finančnega položaja industrije Unije, ki ga je povzročil dampinški uvoz.
Furthermore, even though the production capacity of the Union industry slightly increased during the period considered, the capacity utilisation decreased because of the low priced dumped Russian imports.
Čeprav se je proizvodna zmogljivost industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju nekoliko povečala, se je izkoriščenost zmogljivosti zmanjšala zaradi dampinškega ruskega uvoza po nizkih cenah.
In addition, the Union industry's production volume slightly increased and its market share decreased continuously throughout the period considered.
Poleg tega se je v obravnavanem obdobju obseg proizvodnje industrije Unije nekoliko povečal, njegov tržni delež pa se je stalno manjšal.
Therefore, this cannot be considered as a cause of the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Zato se to ne more šteti kot vzrok za znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
In the absence of any other comment in this regard, the conclusions reached in recitals 123 to 125 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
Drugih pripomb v zvezi s tem ni bilo, zato so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 123 do 125 začasne uredbe potrjeni.
In the absence of any comments regarding the effect of the Union industry's export performance, the conclusions reached in recitals 126 to 128 were confirmed.
Pripomb v zvezi z učinkom izvoza industrije Unije ni bilo, zato so bili sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 126 do 128 začasne uredbe potrjeni.
The activity of the Union industry in the aluminium converters foils (ACF) market
Dejavnost industrije Unije na trgu konverterske aluminijaste folije („ACF“)
After provisional disclosure, one party claimed that the Commission failed to give consideration to ACF as other factor.
Po začasnem razkritju je ena stran trdila, da Komisija ni upoštevala ACF kot drugega dejavnika.
It reiterated its claim that some Union producers chose to increase the production and sale of the more lucrative ACF product at the expense of AHF production.
Ponovila je svojo izjavo, da so se nekateri proizvajalci Unije odločili povečati proizvodnjo in prodajo donosnejšega izdelka, tj. ACF, v škodo proizvodnje AHF.
It also argued that the Commission failed to consider the impact of the production and sales of ACF and its economic situation on the overall economic situation of the Union industry for AHF.
Trdila je tudi, da Komisija ni upoštevala učinka proizvodnje in prodaje ACF ter njenega gospodarskega položaja na celoten gospodarski položaj industrije Unije za AHF.
This claim was reiterated following final disclosure without any new information.
To trditev je ponovila po dokončnem razkritju, pri čemer ni predložila novih informacij.
As explained in recital 81 of the provisional Regulation, several Union producers manufactured both AHF and ACF, while the largest sampled producer of AHF did not produce ACF during the investigation period.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 81 začasne uredbe, je v obdobju preiskave več proizvajalcev unije proizvajalo tako AHF kot ACF, medtem ko največji vzorčeni proizvajalec AHF ni proizvajal ACF.
In addition, the investigation has shown that the sampled Union producers had a stable ratio of production between the two types of foils and therefore it was concluded that there was no switch of the Union industry to the production of ACF to the detriment of AHF.
Poleg tega je preiskava pokazala, da so imeli vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije stabilno razmerje proizvodnje med obema vrstama folije, zato se je sklenilo, da industrija Unije ni preklopila na proizvodnjo ACF v škodo AHF.
In any event, in case such a switch had happened, it would have been rather an effect of the dumped imports from Russia which continuously put a significant price pressure on AHF that prevented the Union producers from increasing prices to profitable levels.
Če bi se tak preklop zgodil, bi bila to vsekakor posledica dampinškega uvoza iz Rusije, ki je nenehno izvajal znaten pritisk na cene AHF in s tem proizvajalcem Unije preprečil, da bi cene zvišali na dobičkonosne ravni.
Moreover, the investigation showed that the trend in profitability of the product concerned is comparable across the sampled companies, irrespective of the share of AHF and ACF production in their total production.
Preiskava je pokazala tudi, da je trend dobičkonosnosti zadevnega izdelka pri vzorčenih družbah primerljiv, ne glede na delež proizvodnje AHF in ACF v njihovi celotni proizvodnji.
The claim described in recital 65 is therefore rejected.
Trditev iz uvodne izjave 65 se zato zavrne.
In the absence of any other comment in this regard, the conclusions set out in recitals 129 to 132 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Drugih pripomb v zvezi s tem ni bilo, zato se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 129 do 132 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Cost of raw materials
Stroški surovin
After provisional disclosure, the Russian authorities disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that the price development of aluminium quoted at the London Metal Exchange (LME) did not have a bearing on the fact that Russian import prices were undercutting the Union industry's selling price and were exerting a price pressure on the Union market, which did not allow the Union industry to increase their selling price to a level that would have covered the cost of production.
Po začasnem razkritju se ruski organi niso strinjali s sklepom Komisije, da gibanje cen aluminija, ki kotira na londonski borzi kovin, ni vplivalo na dejstvo, da so cene ruskega uvoza nelojalno nižale prodajno ceno industrije Unije in izvajale pritisk na cene na trgu Unije, zaradi česar industrija Unije ni mogla zvišati svoje prodajne cene na raven, s katero bi lahko pokrila proizvodne stroške.
As it was explained in recital 136 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation has showed that both, the Union industry and the Russian exporting producers bore comparable costs when sourcing aluminium to manufacture AHF, as the market prices of aluminium in both, Russia and the Union, were directly linked to the LME.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 136 začasne uredbe, je preiskava pokazala, da so tako industrija Unije kot ruski proizvajalci izvozniki krili primerljive stroške pri pridobivanju aluminija za proizvodnjo AHF, saj so bile tržne cene aluminija v Rusiji in Uniji neposredno povezane z londonsko borzo kovin.
In addition, while sales prices of the Union industry as well as import prices from Russia of AHF were decreasing following the price development of aluminium quoted at LME, the investigation established that Russian import prices of AHF were constantly lower than the Union industry's prices during the period considered and undercut them by [3 %-7 %] during the investigation period.
Medtem ko so se prodajne cene industrije Unije in uvozne cene AHF iz Rusije zniževale glede na gibanje cen aluminija, ki kotira na londonski borzi kovin, je bilo v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da so bile cene ruskega uvoza AHF v obravnavanem obdobju stalno nižje od cen industrije Unije, pri čemer so jih v obdobju preiskave nelojalno znižale za [3 %–7 %].
Moreover, the Union industry sales prices of AHF did not cover the unit cost of production even though unit cost of production decreased.
Poleg tega industrija Unije s prodajnimi cenami AHF ni krila proizvodnih stroškov na enoto, čeprav so se slednji zmanjšali.
This was due to the price pressure exerted by the dumped imports in significant volumes undercutting the Union industry's sales prices which did not allow the Union industry to increase its sales prices and did therefore not allow them to benefit from the decrease in the raw material costs.
To je bila posledica pritiska na cene, ki ga je izvajal dampinški uvoz v znatnem obsegu, pri čemer je nelojalno nižal prodajne cene industrije Unije, zaradi česar slednja ni mogla zvišati svojih prodajnih cen in posledično imeti koristi od znižanja stroškov surovin.
Following final disclosure, the Russian authorities reiterated their claim that the price pressure on the Union market was exercised by the LME aluminium prices instead of the Russian AHF imports, without bringing new evidence in this regard.
Po dokončnem razkritju so ruski organi ponovili svojo trditev, da so na cene na trgu Unije izvajale pritisk cene aluminija na londonski borzi kovin in ne ruski uvoz AHF, vendar v zvezi s tem niso predložili novih dokazov.
In the absence of any other comment in this regard, the conclusions set out in recitals 133 to 136 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Drugih pripomb v zvezi s tem ni bilo, zato se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 133 do 136 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Cumulated effects of other factors
Kumulativni učinki drugih dejavnikov
After provisional disclosure, one interested party claimed that the Commission failed to provide an assessment of the cumulated effects of all other factors without, however, specifying the legal basis for its claim or explaining how, under the facts of this case, this could have resulted in the attribution of injury resulting from other factors to the Russian dumped imports.
Po začasnem razkritju je ena zainteresirana stran trdila, da Komisija ni zagotovila ocene kumulativnih učinkov vseh drugih dejavnikov in za svojo trditev ni natančno opredelila pravne podlage ali pojasnila, kako je lahko to glede na dejstva tega primera pripeljalo do tega, da se je škoda, ki je izhajala iz drugih dejavnikov, pripisala ruskemu dampinškemu uvozu.
Firstly, the basic Regulation does not require the Commission to conduct an assessment of the cumulated effects of other factors when analysing the impact of these factors.
Prvič, osnovna uredba od Komisije ne zahteva, da pri analizi učinka teh dejavnikov oceni kumulativne učinke drugih dejavnikov.
Secondly, in the present case, the Commission was able to properly distinguish and separate the effects of all other known factors individually on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the Russian dumped imports.
Drugič, v sedanjem primeru je Komisija lahko ustrezno opredelila posamične učinke vseh drugih znanih dejavnikov na položaj industrije Unije in jih ločila od škodljivih učinkov ruskega dampinškega uvoza.
Therefore, the Commission was able to conclude that the injury it ascribed to Russian dumped imports is actually caused by those imports, rather than by the other factors.
Zato je Komisija lahko sklenila, da je škodo, ki jo je pripisala ruskemu dampinškemu uvozu, dejansko povzročil prav ta uvoz in ne drugi dejavniki.
The Commission therefore fulfilled its obligation not to attribute to Russian dumped imports the injury caused by other causal factors.
Komisija je tako izpolnila svojo obveznost, da ruskemu dampinškemu uvozu ni pripisala škode, ki so jo povzročili drugi vzročni dejavniki.
Therefore, no collective analysis of all the known factors is necessary.
Zato skupna analiza vseh znanih dejavnikov ni potrebna.
In any event, this interested party did not adduce any evidence on why the Commission in this case has improperly attributed to Russian dumped imports the injury caused by other factors.
Ta zainteresirana stran vsekakor ni priložila dokazov o tem, zakaj je Komisija v tem primeru škodo, ki so jo povzročili drugi dejavniki, neustrezno pripisala ruskemu dampinškemu uvozu.