natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz mononatrijevega glutamata s poreklom iz Indonezije
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 as from 22 August 2014 a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 904/2014 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Evropska komisija (Komisija) je z 22. avgustom 2014 z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 904/2014 [2] (začasna uredba) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz mononatrijevega glutamata s poreklom iz Indonezije.
The proceeding was initiated on 29 November 2013 following a complaint lodged on 16 October 2013 by Ajinomoto Foods Europe SAS (‘the complainant’), the sole Union producer of monosodium glutamate, thus representing 100 % of the total Union production of monosodium glutamate.
Komisija je postopek začela 29. novembra 2013 na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 16. oktobra 2013 vložila družba Ajinomoto Foods Europe SAS (pritožnik), ki je edini proizvajalec mononatrijevega glutamata v Uniji in zato predstavlja 100 % celotne proizvodnje mononatrijevega glutamata v Uniji.
As set out in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013 (‘the investigation period’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 20 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajemala obdobje od 1. oktobra 2012 do 30. septembra 2013 (obdobje preiskave).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 April 2010 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).
Gibanja, pomembna za oceno škode, so se proučila za obdobje od 1. aprila 2010 do konca obdobja preiskave (obravnavano obdobje).
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 parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.
Stranem, ki so to zahtevale, je bila dana tudi možnost za zaslišanje.
The Commission considered the oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties and, where appropriate, modified the provisional findings accordingly.
Komisija je obravnavala ustne in pisne pripombe, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane strani, in po potrebi ustrezno spremenila začasne ugotovitve.
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 monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia 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 mononatrijevega glutamata s poreklom iz Indonezije in dokončno pobrati zneske, zavarovane z začasno dajatvijo (dokončno razkritje).
All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure.
Za vse strani je bil določen rok, v katerem so lahko predložile pripombe k dokončnemu razkritju.
In the absence of comments concerning the method of sampling of unrelated importers, the provisional findings in recitals 7 to 19 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo pripomb v zvezi z metodo vzorčenja nepovezanih uvoznikov, se začasne ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 7 do 19 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
As set out in recital 21 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is monosodium glutamate (‘MSG’) originating in Indonesia, currently falling within CN code ex29224200 (‘the product concerned’).
Kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 21 začasne uredbe, je zadevni izdelek mononatrijev glutamat (MNG) s poreklom iz Indonezije, ki se trenutno uvršča pod oznako KN ex29224200 (zadevni izdelek).
MSG is available in various packing sizes, ranging from consumer packs of 0,5 g to 1000 kg bulk bags.
MNG je na voljo v različnih velikostih pakiranja, od potrošniškega pakiranja po 0,5 g do 1000-kilogramskega pakiranja v razsutem stanju v vrečah.
Smaller packing sizes are sold via retailers to private consumers, while the larger sizes of 20 kg and more are destined for industrial users.
Majhna pakiranja se prodajajo zasebnim potrošnikom prek prodajalcev na drobno, medtem ko so večja pakiranja po 20 kg in več namenjena industrijskim uporabnikom.
However, there are no differences in the characteristics of monosodium glutamate based on pack size or purity grade.
Vendar ni razlik v značilnostih mononatrijevega glutamata, pakiranega v različno velikih pakiranjih ali pri različnih stopnjah čistosti.
In the absence of any comments regarding the product concerned and the like product, the conclusions reached in recitals 21 to 25 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo pripomb v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom, se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav 21 do 25 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In the absence of any comments regarding normal value, recitals 26 to 31 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo pripomb v zvezi z določitvijo normalne vrednosti, se uvodne izjave 26 do 31 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Both cooperating Indonesian exporting producers reiterated their claims that sales prices to their related companies are at arm's length and that the determination of the export price should therefore be based on the sales price between the mother company in Indonesia and the first related customer, rather than on a constructed export price.
Oba sodelujoča indonezijska proizvajalca izvoznika sta ponovila svoje trditve, da so bile prodajne cene za njune povezane družbe enake običajnim cenam na trgu in da bi bilo treba izvozno ceno zato določiti na podlagi prodajne cene indonezijske matične družbe za prvo povezano stranko in ne na podlagi konstruirane izvozne cene.
In support of this claim both exporting producers argued that no evidence was available concerning cross-compensation between products or other cost incurred between the mother company in Indonesia and their related companies.
V podporo tej trditvi sta oba proizvajalca izvoznika trdila, da ni bilo na voljo nobenih dokazov v zvezi z navzkrižno kompenzacijo med izdelki niti da so pri poslovanju med indonezijsko matično družbo in njunimi povezanimi družbami nastali drugi stroški.
The conclusions in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation should not have been therefore based on these elements.
Sklepi iz uvodne izjave 37 začasne uredbe zato ne bi smeli temeljiti na teh elementih.
One exporting producer claimed, in addition, that its related company in the Union was not an importer but an intermediate who resold the product in the Union before customs clearance.
Eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov je poleg tega trdil, da njegova povezana družba v Uniji ni uvoznik, ampak posrednik, ki je nadalje prodajal izdelek v Uniji pred carinjenjem.
This exporting producer argued that on this basis the conclusions reached in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, that is that the transfer price between related companies was not at a level that could allow the related importers to make a reasonable profit in the Union, would therefore not be applicable.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je glede na navedeno trdil, da sklepi iz uvodne izjave 37 začasne uredbe, tj. da transferne cene med povezanimi družbami niso bile na ravni, ki bi povezanim uvoznikom omogočila, da v Uniji ustvarijo razumen dobiček, ne bi bili primerni.
At the outset, it should be noted that the mere fact of association between the exporter and the importer is enough to enable the Commission to treat the actual export prices as unreliable because the existence of association between the exporter and the importer is one of a number of reasons for which the actual export prices may regarded as unreliable.
Že od začetka je treba poudariti, da je že samo dejstvo povezanosti med izvoznikom in uvoznikom dovolj, da Komisija obravnava dejanske izvozne cene kot nezanesljive, saj je obstoj povezanosti med izvoznikom in uvoznikom eden izmed več razlogov, zaradi katerih je mogoče dejanske izvozne cene šteti za nezanesljive.
Due to the association between supplier and importer, prices charged by a supplier to its related company in the Union are transfer prices which are not the result of arm's length negotiations which normally prevail between independent companies.
Zaradi povezanosti med dobaviteljem in uvoznikom so cene, ki jih dobavitelj zaračuna svoji povezani družbi v Uniji, transferne cene, ki niso rezultat pogajanj na podlagi strogo poslovnih odnosov, ki so navadno razširjeni med neodvisnimi družbami.
Moreover, it is clear that costs entailed by the activities of a related company and a profit margin such a company achieves effectively reduce the amount received by the exporting producer in as much as they are normally incurred by the importer.
Poleg tega je jasno, da stroški, ki nastanejo pri dejavnostih povezane družbe, in stopnja dobička, ki jo takšna družba ustvari, dejansko zmanjšujejo znesek, ki ga prejme proizvajalec izvoznik, saj ti stroški običajno nastanejo uvozniku.
In addition, in the current case the investigation revealed that the relevant related companies did not realise a sustainable profit margin in the Union.
Nadalje je preiskava te zadeve pokazala, da zadevne povezane družbe niso ustvarjale vzdržne stopnje dobička v Uniji.
In this respect, it should be first noted that the profit margin of an unrelated cooperating importer could not be used as it was confidential and could thus not be disclosed to competitors.
S tega vidika je treba najprej poudariti, da ni bilo mogoče uporabiti stopnje dobička sodelujočega nepovezanega uvoznika, saj je bila ta zaupna in je tako ni bilo mogoče razkriti konkurentom.
Therefore, a profit margin which was used in a previous proceeding concerning another chemical product manufactured by a similar industry and imported to the Union under similar circumstances as in the present case was used [3] as a benchmark.
Zato se je za referenčno vrednost v tej zadevi uporabila stopnja dobička, ki je bila uporabljena v prejšnjem postopku v zvezi z drugim kemičnim izdelkom, ki ga proizvaja podobna industrija in se v Unijo uvaža pod podobnimi pogoji [3].
This profit margin is the most objective basis available for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory estimate of an arm's length export price.
Ta stopnja dobička je najbolj objektivna podlaga, ki je na voljo za izračun zadovoljive ocene enake izvozne cene.
This reasonable profit margin used was at 5 %.
Uporabljena je bila 5-odstotna stopnja dobička.
As the profit realised by related companies in the Union is significantly lower than this threshold, and in light of the unsustainable nature of such profit, the transfer price could not be considered as reliable.
Ker je dobiček, ki so ga ustvarile povezane družbe v Uniji, precej nižji od tega praga in ker je tak dobiček nevzdržen, transfernih cen ni bilo mogoče šteti za zanesljive.
Moreover, positive evidence that cross-compensation or certain costs incurred and normally borne by an importer but paid by any party have indeed taken place between the related companies is not necessarily required.
Poleg tega ni obvezno nujno predložiti nedvoumnih dokazov, da je prišlo med povezanimi družbami do navzkrižne kompenzacije ali da so pri poslovanju nastali določeni stroški, ki jih navadno nosi uvoznik, vendar plačuje katera koli stran.
As mentioned above, these costs are always incurred by a related company as soon as such a company is performing selling and importing functions.
Kot je bilo že omenjeno, ti stroški vedno nastanejo povezani družbi, takoj ko ta družba izvaja funkcije prodaje in uvoza.
As a consequence of the association between the related companies, the existence of cross-compensation via other products or such costs cannot be excluded and therefore the transfer prices are unreliable.
Zaradi te povezanosti med povezanimi družbami obstoja navzkrižne kompenzacije z drugimi izdelki ali tovrstnih stroškov ni mogoče izključiti in zato so transferne cene nezanesljive.
It is also not relevant whether the related company in the Union is carrying out the full functions of an importer or indeed other functions.
Prav tako ni pomembno, ali povezana družba v Uniji v celoti izvaja funkcije uvoznika ali druge funkcije.
The relevant factor is whether the export price at the Community frontier level is reliable.
Relevantni dejavnik je, ali je izvozna cena na ravni meja Skupnosti zanesljiva.
As mentioned above in recital 15 the current investigation revealed that the price levels between related companies did not allow the related companies in the Union to realise a reasonable profit margin.
Kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 15, je trenutna preiskava pokazala, da ravni cen med povezanimi družbami niso omogočile povezanim družbam v Uniji, da bi ustvarile razumno stopnjo dobička.
None of the exporters provided any evidence why this profit margin would be inappropriate and therefore the claims made in this regard should be considered as unsubstantiated.
Nobeden od izvoznikov ni predložil dokazov, zakaj bi bila ta stopnja dobička neprimerna, zato bi bilo treba trditve v zvezi s tem šteti za neutemeljene.
The argument that one of these related companies did not perform the functions of an importer in the Union was not warranted as, as mentioned above, it is irrelevant which precise functions the company performed in the Union.
Argument, da ena od teh povezanih družb ni izvajala funkcije uvoznika v Unijo, ni bil na mestu, saj – kot je omenjeno zgoraj – ni pomembno, točno katere funkcije je družba izvajala v Uniji.
Moreover, the fact that the company performed only some functions of an importer is necessarily reflected in the amount of selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) costs of the related companies but certainly not in the profit margin used.
Poleg tega se dejstvo, da je družba izvajala zgolj nekatere funkcije uvoznika, nujno odraža v obsegu prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroškov povezanih družb, prav gotovo pa ne v uporabljeni stopnji dobička.
Moreover, it should be noted that the fact that certain activities are performed by the related company prior to importation does not mean that the export price may not be constructed on the basis of the resale price to the first independent customer with the necessary allowances being made pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da dejstvo, da je povezana družba nekatere dejavnosti opravljala pred uvozom, ne pomeni, da izvozne cene ni mogoče konstruirati na podlagi preprodajne cene prvi neodvisni stranki s potrebnimi prilagoditvami iz člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
Following final disclosure, the two cooperating Indonesian exporting producers reiterated their claims regarding the determination of the export price.
Po dokončnem razkritju sta dva sodelujoča indonezijska proizvajalca izvoznika ponovila svoje trditve v zvezi z določitvijo izvozne cene.
One exporting producer contested the findings set out in recital 15 that the mere fact of an association between the exporter and the importer is enough to enable the Commission to treat actual export prices as unreliable and claimed that this would be against Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je oporekal ugotovitvam iz uvodne izjave 15, da je že samo dejstvo povezanosti med izvoznikom in uvoznikom dovolj, da Komisija obravnava dejanske izvozne cene kot nezanesljive, ter trdil, da bi bilo to v nasprotju s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
Moreover, the same exporting producer claimed that the considerations set out in recital 17 that certain costs incurred by a related company as soon as such a company is performing selling and importing functions was not based on the facts of the case.
Poleg tega je isti proizvajalec izvoznik trdil, da pomisleki iz uvodne izjave 17, tj. da nekateri stroški nastanejo povezani družbi, takoj ko ta družba izvaja funkcije prodaje in uvoza, niso temeljili na dejstvih iz te zadeve.
Finally, this exporting producer claimed that the Commission did not address the fact that the levels of the prices to the related company and those to independent customers in the Union were similar.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil tudi, da Komisija ni obravnavala dejstva, da so bile ravni cen, ki so veljale za povezano družbo, in teh, ki so veljale za neodvisne stranke v Uniji, podobne.
The other exporting producer reiterated its claim that its export price to the first independent customer at the Union frontier should be taken into account for the determination of the export price emphasising that the related company only acted as an intermediary and that among others, the customs clearance was performed by the unrelated customers in the Union.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je ponovil svojo trditev, da bi bilo treba njegovo izvozno ceno za prvo neodvisno stranko na meji Unije upoštevati pri določitvi izvozne cene, pri čemer je poudaril, da je povezana družba delovala le kot posrednik in da so med drugim carinjenje opravile nepovezane stranke v Uniji.
In reply to these claims it is noted that in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the Commission considered that, on the basis of the facts of the case, the export prices should be constructed due to the association between the exporters and the related parties.
V odgovor na te trditve je treba poudariti, da je Komisija v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe menila, da bi bilo treba glede na dejstva iz te zadeve izvozno ceno konstruirati zaradi povezanosti med izvozniki in povezanimi stranmi.
Indeed, the investigation revealed that the relevant related parties did not realise a sustainable profit margin in the Union during the investigation period.
Dejansko je preiskava pokazala, da zadevne povezane strani v obravnavanem obdobju niso ustvarjale vzdržne stopnje dobička v Uniji.
In this regard, the function of the related company in the Union is not relevant when determining whether export prices in the present case should be constructed.
Iz tega vidika funkcija povezane družbe v Uniji ni relevantna pri določitvi, ali bi bilo treba izvozne cene v tej zadevi konstruirati.
In addition, as stated in recital 18 above, the fact that the related companies perform only certain functions is not an obstacle to the application of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation but is 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.
Poleg tega, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 18, dejstvo, da povezane družbe izvajajo zgolj nekatere funkcije, ne ovira uporabe člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe, vendar se to odraža v nižjem znesku prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroškov, ki se odštejejo od preprodajne cene prvemu neodvisnemu kupcu.
Finally, it is also noted that the exporting producers did not provide any new factual evidence which could revert these conclusions.
Končno je treba poudariti, da proizvajalca izvoznika nista zagotovila nobenih novih z dejstvi podprtih dokazov, ki bi lahko spremenili te sklepe.
Regarding the claim relating to similar price level to related and independent customers in the Union, it should be noted that this claim was addressed in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation.
Kar zadeva trditev v zvezi s podobnimi ravnmi cen za povezane in neodvisne stranke v Uniji, je treba poudariti, da je bila ta trditev obravnavana v uvodni izjavi 37 začasne uredbe.
The investigation found that despite similar price levels with the independent customers, the transfer prices between the related companies were not at a level that could allow the related importers to make sustainable profit in the Union.
V preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da kljub podobnim ravnem cen za neodvisne stranke, transferne cene med povezanimi družbami niso bile na ravni, ki bi povezanim uvoznikom dovoljevala, da bi ustvarjali vzdržen dobiček v Uniji.
Therefore, these arguments should be rejected.
Zato bi bilo treba te argumente zavrniti.
The arguments concerning the recourse to constructed export prices in the present investigation should therefore be rejected.
Argumente v zvezi z uporabo konstruiranih izvoznih cen v tej preiskavi bi bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The same two exporting producers claimed that, should export prices be constructed despite their arguments mentioned in recitals 12 to 14, the reasonable profit margin of 5 % used to construct the export price was overestimated and that the actual profit margin of their related companies should be used instead as prices between the related parties were at the same level as those to independent customers.
Ista proizvajalca izvoznika sta trdila, da – če bi bile izvozne cene konstruirane, kljub njunim argumentom iz uvodnih izjav 12 do 14 – je bila 5-odstotna razumna stopnja dobička, ki je bila uporabljena za konstruiranje izvozne cene, precenjena in da bi bilo treba namesto te uporabiti dejansko stopnjo dobička povezanih družb, saj so bile cene med povezanimi družbami na isti ravni kot cene za neodvisne stranke.
On the basis of the considerations set out in recitals 15 to 18 concerning the reliability of transfer prices and profit margins of the related companies in the Union, this argument should be rejected.
Na podlagi pomislekov iz uvodnih izjav 15 do 18 v zvezi z zanesljivostjo transfernih cen in stopenj dobička povezanih družb v Uniji bi bilo treba ta argument zavrniti.
In any event, the allowances made for costs incurred in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation were based on the relevant companies' own SG&A costs and reflected therefore the activities of these companies, whatever their functions.
V vsakem primeru so prilagoditve za nastale stroške v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe temeljile na prodajnih, splošnih in upravnih stroških povezanih družb in so torej odražale dejavnosti teh družb ne glede na njihove funkcije.
Consequently, this argument should be rejected.
Zato bi bilo treba ta argument zavrniti.
One of the above exporting producers claimed that, for specific transactions with a company not related to the exporting producer, the export price should have been based on the actual price paid or payable in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
Eden od omenjenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je trdil, da bi morala biti za posamezne transakcije z družbo, ki ni povezana s proizvajalcem izvoznikom, izvozna cena zasnovana na ceni, ki se je dejansko plačala ali se plačuje za izdelek v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission found, however, that the sales in question were not export sales to the Union.
Vendar je Komisija ugotovila, da pri zadevni prodaji ni šlo za izvoz v Unijo.
On this basis, the transactions concerned were excluded from the determination of the export price.
Glede na navedeno zadevne transakcije niso bile upoštevane pri določitvi izvozne cene.
Following final disclosure, the exporting producer contested this exclusion on the basis that the Commission should take into account all sales of the product concerned in the Union produced by the exporting producer.
Po dokončnem razkritju je proizvajalec izvoznik oporekal tej izključitvi, in sicer je trdil, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati vso prodajo zadevnega izdelka, ki ga je proizvedel proizvajalec izvoznik, v Uniji.