natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission observes that those interested parties do not contest that the duty has been passed on and do not provide any proof for a decline in sales, and that in any event the case-law on unjust enrichement only takes into pass-on, but not possible secondary effects of pass-on.
Opozarja, da mora biti na podlagi sodne prakse dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO/IO.
Regarding the alleged derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity, reference is made to the recitals (67) to (75) where this was addressed extensively.
V skladu z mnenjem Sodišča v sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang institucijama zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Regarding the alleged application of two different legal frames in the current implementation reference is made to recitals (92) to (95) where this was addressed extensively.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora oceniti, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz prvega pododstavka člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri TGO/IO (glej zgoraj navedeno uvodno izjavo 30).
Other procedural issues
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisiji od proizvajalca izvoznika ni treba zahtevati, naj dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO.
FESI claimed that the same procedural rights should have granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation than those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Kot je navedeno v predhodni uvodni izjavi, lahko Komisija svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je proizvajalec izvoznik že predložil.
They argued that in particular, the Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters and only desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits.
V vsakem primeru zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso izpodbijali ocene njihovih zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki jo je opravila Komisija, prav tako pa niso navedli, na katere dokumente ali osebe se ne morejo več sklicevati.
In addition, the Commission did not ensure the due delivery of the disclosure of the assessment of MET/IT requests to the exporting producers concerned as these were only sent to the legal representatives of these companies at the time of the original investigation.
Ta trditev je zato tako abstraktna, da instituciji teh težav pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO ne moreta upoštevati.
FESI further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Ker ta trditev temelji na domnevah in ni podprta z natančnimi navedbami o tem, kateri dokumenti in osebe niso več na voljo ter kakšen pomen imajo ti dokumenti in osebe za oceno zahtevka za TGO/IO, jo je treba ovreči.
The Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Kar zadeva člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe, je v obravnavani zadevi Komisija sprejela informacije, predložene s strani zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, teh informacij ni zavrnila, poleg tega je na njih utemeljila svojo oceno.
In addition, exporting producers, during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Zato Komisija tega člena ni uporabila.
FESI also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Očitne napake pri oceni zahtevkov za TGO/IO
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
Ocena TGO
It recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Kar zadeva merilo 1, je FESI izpodbijal oceno Komisije v zvezi z zahtevki vietnamskih dobaviteljev za TGO in trdil, da so bili zavrnjeni predvsem na podlagi odsotnosti celovitih podatkov.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
V zvezi z merilom 1 je FESI trdil, da Komisija, poleg tega, da si na noben način ni prizadevala pridobiti manjkajočih podatkov, tudi ni določila, s katerimi podatki bi bilo treba dokazati, da pri poslovnih odločitvah zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni bilo nobenega večjega vmešavanja države.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see above recital (30)).
FESI je nadalje zahteval, da se mu predložijo podrobnejše informacije, na podlagi katerih je bilo sklenjeno, da poslovne odločitve vietnamskih dobaviteljev niso bile sprejete v skladu s tržnimi signali brez znatnega vmešavanja države.
The right to be heard concerns the opportunity of the party to express its views and the Commission to consider these views.
V zvezi s tem je FESI opozoril, da se v skladu z merilom 1 iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe razume, da vmešavanje države presega zgolj njen vpliv.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
V zvezi z merilom 3 je FESI, ki se je skliceval na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi T-586/14 Xinyi OV proti Komisiji, trdil, da davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi niso kazali na morebitno izkrivljanje ali netržno ekonomsko vedenje.
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
V zvezi z merilom 2 je FESI opozoril, da zgolj odsotnost revidiranih računovodskih izkazov ni razlog za zavrnitev zahtevkov za TGO, saj se niti v Uniji od malih podjetij s prihodki pod določenim pragom ne zahteva, da predložijo revidirane računovodske izkaze.
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
Na podlagi tega so zadevne strani trdile, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri uporabi člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe in prav tako ni ustrezno obrazložila zavrnitve zahtevkov proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Glede manjkajočih podatkov v zvezi z merilom 1 se sklicuje na uvodno izjavo 126, ki navaja, da se z nobeno določbo osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahteva, da izvoznim družbam, ki zahtevajo TGO, omogoči dopolnitev manjkajočih stvarnih informacij in da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu izvozniku, ki želi zahtevati TGO.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument has to be rebutted.
Kar zadeva zahtevo po podrobnejših informacijah v zahtevkih nekaterih vietnamskih dobaviteljev za TGO/IO, na podlagi katerih je Komisija zavrnila merilo 1, je treba opozoriti, da so bile take informacije Komisiji predložene zaupno, ker so vsebovale poslovne skrivnosti.
Regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, in the current case the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned, it did not reject this information and based its assessment on it.
Teh informacij kot takih ni bilo mogoče razkriti, temveč zgolj njihov povzetek, ki ni zaupen.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply that article.
V zvezi z merilom 3 je pojasnjeno, da morebitne davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi niso bili upoštevani kot razlog za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva merilo 2, člen 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe jasno določa, da morajo družbe imeti jasno določeno zbirko računovodskih evidenc, ki se pregledujejo neodvisno, v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi in se uporabljajo v vse namene.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Nobeden od zadevnih vietnamskih dobaviteljev ni izpolnjeval teh zahtev.
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 33, so ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti odsotnost revidiranih računovodskih izkazov ali mnenj revizorjev, resne pomanjkljivosti, ki jih v svojem mnenju navajajo revizorji (kot je neskladnost z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi) ter nasprotujoče si navedbe glede posojil v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO in računovodskih izkazih.
MET assessment
Vsi zahtevki, ki jih je predložil FESI, so bili zato zavrnjeni, ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 30 do 37 pa potrjene.
Regarding criterion 1 FESI contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of the Vietnamese suppliers and alleged that they were mainly rejected based on the absence of complete information.
Ocena IO
Regarding criterion 1, FESI argued that the Commission, apart from making no effort to obtain the missing information did also not specify which information would have been necessary to show that there was no significant State interference in the business decisions of the exporting producers concerned.
FESI je s sklicevanjem na merilo 2 trdil, da Komisija ni dokazala, da izvoz ni bil svobodno določen in da je bilo na strani Komisije, da ugotovi, ali je na izvozne cene vplivalo vmešavanje države in na kakšen način je vplivalo nanje.
FESI further requested to be provided with more detailed information on the basis of which it was concluded that business decisions of the Vietnamese suppliers were not taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Poleg tega je FESI trdil, da je ugotovitev, da izvoz ni bil določen svobodno, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami prvotne preiskave, povezane s prodajo proizvajalcev originalne opreme, kjer je bilo ugotovljeno, da so uvozniki, kot je Puma, opravljali lastne raziskave in razvoj ter iskanje surovin, ko so kupovali od svojih dobaviteljev.
In this regard, FESI recalled that in accordance with criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, state interference needs to go beyond mere influence.
Na podlagi tega se je trdilo, da imata družbi Puma in Timberland pomemben nadzor nad proizvodnim procesom in specifikacijami ter da zato ni bilo možnosti vmešavanja države.
Regarding criterion 3, referring the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, FESI argued that tax incentives or preferential tax regimes were not indicative for any distortion or non-market economy behaviour.
Kot je že navedeno v zgoraj navedeni uvodni izjavi 39, je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi odobritev IO.
Regarding criterion 2, FESI observed that the mere absence of audited accounts is not a reason to reject MET claims as even in the Union small companies with a turnover below a certain threshold are not required to have audited accounts.
Kot je tudi pojasnjeno v zgoraj navedeni uvodni izjavi 47, proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni uspelo dokazati, da so bile poslovne odločitve sprejete brez vmešavanja države.
On this basis, the parties argued that the Commission made a manifest error in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and has also not provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the exporting producers' MET requests.
Omenjeno je tudi, da se merilo 2 ne nanaša le na izvozne cene, ampak na splošno na izvoz, vključno z izvoznimi cenami in količinami ter drugimi pogoji prodaje, ki bi morali biti določeni svobodno, brez vmešavanja države.
With regard to the missing information concerning criterion 1, reference is made to recital (126) which outlines that there is nothing in the basic Regulation that requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET the possibility to complete lacking factual information and that the burden of proof lies in fact with the exporting producer who wishes to claim MET.
V podporo trditvi, da so bile izvozne cene svobodno določene, se je FESI skliceval na uvodno izjavo 269 (začasna uredba).
As to the request for more detailed information included in the MET/IT claims of certain Vietnamese suppliers on the basis of which the Commission rejected criterion 1, it is noted that such information was provided to the Commission on a confidential basis as it contained business secrets.
Vendar pa se je ta uvodna izjava nanašala na cene pri nadaljnji prodaji uvoznikov v Uniji in zato ne more biti obravnavana kot primerna osnova za določitev zanesljivosti izvoznih cen s strani proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
This information could therefore not be disclosed as such and only a non confidential summary thereof.
Prav tako se sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo 132 začasne uredbe in uvodno izjavo 135 (izpodbijana uredba) nanaša na prilagoditve normalne vrednosti, kadar se le-ta primerja z izvozno ceno, in ne dopušča kakršnih koli zaključkov o tem, ali je bil izvoz vietnamskih družb določen svobodno.
Concerning criterion 3, it is clarified that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET request.
Poleg tega je FESI trdil, da Komisija prav tako ni pojasnila, kako je prišla do zaključka, da bi obstajalo tveganje izogibanja protidampinškemu ukrepu, če bi bila zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom odobrena individualna stopnja dajatve, kar naj bi bil osnovni namen meril za IO.
Finally, as regards criterion 2, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation clearly stipulates that firms must have one set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes.
Kar zadeva tveganje izogibanja, je to le eno od petih meril, naštetih v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo.
None of the Vietnamese suppliers concerned fulfilled these requirements.
V skladu s tem členom bi moralo biti dokazano, da proizvajalec izvoznik izpolnjuje vseh 5 meril.
As outlined in recital (33) the deficiencies observed were the absence of audited accounts or auditor's opinions, severe issues highlighted by auditors in their opinion (such as non-compliance with international accounting standards) and contradictions regarding loans between certain statements made in the MET claim form and the financial statements.
Zato neizpolnjevanje enega ali več meril zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO brez proučevanja, ali so druga merila izpolnjena.
All claims made by FESI were therefore rejected and the findings laid out in recitals (30) to (37) confirmed.
Dobavitelji družbe Timberland
IT assessment
FESI je izpodbijal trditev iz zgoraj navedene uvodne izjave 20, v skladu s katero je bil eden izmed dobaviteljev družbe Timberland, družba General Shoes Limited, v tožbi pred nacionalnim sodiščem napačno opredeljen kot kitajski dobavitelj, čeprav je bila družba ustanovljena v Vietnamu.
FESI argued, referring to criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was up to the Commission to determine whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
FESI je trdil, da bi morala Komisija zahtevati nadaljnja pojasnila in navedel, da je bila ta družba zlahka prepoznavna kot kitajska družba.
Moreover, FESI argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to OEM sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from their suppliers.
Trdil je, da se je družba sicer res pojavljala z različnima imenoma na obrazcu za vzorčenje in v zahtevku za TGO/IO, predloženem v prvotni preiskavi (tj. kot General Footwear Ltd), vendar je drugačno ime družbe v tožbi podjetja Timberland pred nacionalnim sodiščem (tj. General Shoes Ltd) najverjetneje le posledica napake pri prevodu.
On this basis, it was claimed that Puma and Timberland had significant control over the production process and specifications and that there was therefore no possibility of State interference.
Zato bi bilo treba oceniti zahtevek kitajske družbe General Footwear Ltd za TGO/IO, po drugi strani pa je bila ocena zahtevka družbe General Shoes Ltd za TGO/IO očitna napaka v obsegu, ki se nanaša na zahtevek družbe Timberland po povračilu.
As already mentioned in recital (39) above the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT.
Zato je treba tako oceno utemeljiti in popraviti.
As also explained above in recital (47) the exporting producers failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made without State interference.
Družba General Footwear Ltd je del skupine družb s povezanimi družbami na Kitajskem in v Vietnamu.
It is also noted that criterion 2 is not referring solely to export prices, but in general to export sales including export prices and quantities and other conditions and terms of sales that should be determined freely without State interference.
Oba, proizvajalec v Vietnamu in drug proizvajalec iz Kitajske, sta v prvotni preiskavi predložila zahtevke za TGO/IO.
In support of its argument that export prices were freely determined FESI referred to recital (269) of the provisional Regulation.
V zahtevku za TGO/IO kitajske družbe, je bilo njegovo ime dosledno navajano kot „General Footwear Ltd“ z naslovom na Kitajskem.
However, this recital addressed the re-sale prices of the importers in the Union and cannot therefore be considered as an appropriate basis to establish the reliability of the export prices by the exporting producers.
Proizvajalec v Vietnamu je naveden kot „General Shoes Ltd“.
Likewise, the reference to recital (132) of the provisional Regulation and recital (135) of the contested Regulation refers to adjustments made to the normal value when comparing it to the export price and does not allow any conclusions as to whether export sales of the Vietnamese companies were freely determined.
Vendar je zadevni zahtevek za TGO/IO nejasen glede tega, ali je obravnavana družba dejansko kitajska ali vietnamska.
Furthermore, FESI claimed that the Commission has also not explained how it arrived to the conclusion that there would be a risk of circumvention of the antidumping measure if the exporting producers concerned were granted an individual duty rate that would, however be the underlying purpose of the IT criteria.
Zato ni bilo nerazumno predpostaviti, da je družba, omenjena v spisu, predloženem pred nacionalnim sodiščem, dejansko vietnamska.
Regarding the risk of circumvention, this is only one criterion out of five listed in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation before its amendment.
V vsakem primeru se merila iz člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe za zahtevke za TGO in iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, za zahtevke IO, enakovredno uporabljajo za kitajske in vietnamske proizvajalce, ker se tako LRK kot tudi Vietnam obravnavata kot državi brez tržnega gospodarstva.
According to this Article all 5 criteria should be shown to be met by the exporting producer.
Vietnamska družba General Shoes Ltd. je bila dobavitelj tudi za druge uvoznike poleg družbe Timberland, in njen zahtevek za TGO/IO ni bil ocenjen zgolj v okviru zahtevka družbe Timberland za povračilo.
Therefore, failure to meet one or more criteria is sufficient to deny the IT claim without examining whether the other criteria were met.
Zahtevek za TGO/IO se ocenjuje na podlagi splošnih pogojev poslovanja družbe in ni omejen na specifične transakcije ali stranke v Uniji.
Suppliers of Timberland
Posledično se rezultat takega ocenjevanja uporablja za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika kot takega, zato v zvezi z zahtevki družbe Timberland za povračilo ni bilo očitne napake.
FESI contested the statement in recital (20) above according to which one of Timberland suppliers, General Shoes Limited, was wrongly identified as a Chinese supplier in the application before the national Court whereas the company was established in Vietnam.
V vsakem primeru Komisija še vedno namerava oceniti zahtevek družbe „General Footwear Ltd“ (Kitajska) za TGO/IO.
FESI argued that the Commission should have sought further clarification and alleged that the company was easily identifiable as a Chinese company.
V duhu dobrega upravljanja in da se tekoče izvrševanje ne bi po nepotrebnem zavleklo, bo ta ocena predmet ločenega pravnega akta.
It argued that while it was true that the company appeared with a different name in the sampling form and MET/IT claim provided in the original investigation (i.e. as General Footwear Ltd) the different company name in Timberland's application before the national Court (i.e. General Shoes Ltd) would be most likely merely due to a translation error.
Argument, povezan z zahtevki za povračilo
Therefore the MET/IT request of the Chinese company General Footwear Ltd should have been assessed, while the assessment of the MET/IT request of General Shoes Ltd was a manifest error to the extent the repayment request of Timberland is concerned.
Eden od uvoznikov je priznal, da nobeden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, ni bil njegov dobavitelj in je zato menil, da sklepi za njegov položaj niso pomembni.
Therefore, such assessment has to be justified and corrected.
Ta stran je trdila, da sklepi o sedanjem izvrševanju torej ne morejo biti podlaga za zavrnitev njenih zahtevkov za povračilo, vloženih pri nacionalnih carinskih organih.
General Footwear Ltd is part of a company group with related companies in China and Vietnam.
V nadaljevanju je uvoznik zahteval preiskavo zahtevkov njegovih dobaviteljev za TGO/IO na podlagi dokumentov, ki so bili Komisiji predloženi s strani ustreznih belgijskih carinskih organov.
Both, a producer in Vietnam and another one in China provided MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Glede na zgoraj naveden zahtevek se Komisija sklicuje na Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/223 [42], ki določa postopek v tej zadevi.
In the MET/IT claim of the Chinese company, its name is consistently reported as ‘General Footwear Ltd’ with an address in China.
Še posebej v skladu s členoma 1 in 2 navedene uredbe, bo Komisija proučila ustrezne zahtevke za TGO/IO, takoj ko bo prejela ustrezno dokumentacijo od carinskih organov.
The producer in Vietnam is reported as ‘General Shoes Ltd’.
D. SKLEPI
However, the relevant MET/IT claim form is ambiguous whether the company at stake is in fact Chinese or Vietnamese.
Ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihove analize je bilo sklenjeno, da je treba preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki je za Vietnam v zvezi s štirinajstimi zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki veljala za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe, ponovno uvesti.
It was therefore not unreasonable to assume that the company mentioned in the file before the national Court was in fact Vietnamese.
E. RAZKRITJE
In any event, the criteria set out in Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation for MET requests and in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation before its amendment for IT requests apply equally to Chinese and Vietnamese producers as both PRC and Vietnam are treated as non-market economy countries.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in vse strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so bili obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti ponovna uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz štirinajstih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.