natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission concluded that the identified pattern of trade renders the monitoring of Topray Solar's undertaking impracticable.
Družba Topray Solar ni mogla dokazati, da ti izdelki nazadnje niso bili prodani stranki, ki je vzporedno kupila module.
Topray Solar also sold significant quantities of products not covered by the undertaking (e.g. solar charge controllers) to its related importer in the Union.
Komisija je analizirala posledice tega vzorca trgovanja in ugotovila, da obstaja visoko tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije v primeru, da povezani uvoznik družbe Topray Solar proda izdelke, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, istim strankam, ki vzporedno kupujejo module od družbe Topray Solar.
Topray Solar could not demonstrate that these products were ultimately not sold to a customer which purchased modules in parallel.
Zaradi takega vzorca trgovanja je spremljanje zaveze družbe Topray Solar praktično neizvedljivo.
The Commission analysed the implication of this pattern of trade and concluded that a high risk of cross-compensation exists insofar Topray Solar's related importer may sell products not covered by the undertaking to the same customers that purchase modules in parallel from Topray Solar.
Družba Topray Solar o teh transakcijah prav tako ni poročala Komisiji in je s tem kršila obveznosti, kakor so opisane v uvodni izjavi 29.
Such trade pattern renders the monitoring of Topray Solar's undertaking impracticable.
Komisija je odkrila tudi, da je družba Topray Solar knjižila prodajo dvema uvoznikoma na skupni račun iste stranke.
Topray Solar also failed to report these transactions to the Commission, thus breaching the obligations as described in recital (29).
Vendar pa je družba Topray Solar v svojih četrtletnih poročilih za Komisijo ti stranki navedla kot ločena subjekta, zaradi česar je pod vprašaj postavljena pravilnost poročil, kakor je navedena v uvodni izjavi 29.
The Commission also found that Topray Solar accounted the sales to two importers under a joint customer account.
Družba Topray Solar tudi ni obvestila Komisije o pridobitvi dveh povezanih družb v Uniji in je s tem kršila zahtevo iz uvodne izjave 33.
In its quarterly reports to the Commission, however, Topray Solar declared these customers as different entities, hence putting into question the correctness of the reports, as referred to in recital (29).
Poleg tega se je o manjši prodajni transakciji eni od teh družb poročalo kot o prodaji nepovezanemu uvozniku in to pomeni kršitev obveznosti iz uvodne izjave 29.
Topray Solar also failed to notify the Commission about the acquisition of two related companies in the Union, in breach of the requirement set out in recital (33) above.
E. OCENA IZVEDLJIVOSTI CELOTNE ZAVEZE
In addition, a minor sales transaction to one of these companies was reported as sales to an unrelated importer, in breach of the obligations mentioned in recital (29).
Zaveza določa, da kršitev s strani posameznega proizvajalca izvoznika ne privede samodejno do umika sprejetja zaveze za vse proizvajalce izvoznike.
E. ASSESSMENT OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE OVERALL UNDERTAKING
V takem primeru mora Komisija oceniti učinek te kršitve na izvedljivost zaveze z učinkom za vse proizvajalce izvoznike in CCCME.
The undertaking stipulates that a breach by an individual exporting producer does not automatically lead to the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking for all exporting producers.
Komisija je ustrezno ocenila vpliv kršitev s strani družb BLD Solar in Topray Solar na izvedljivost zaveze z učinkom za vse proizvajalce izvoznike in CCCME.
In such a case, the Commission is required to assess the impact of that particular breach on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
Odgovornost za kršitve se pripiše samo zadevnima proizvajalcema izvoznikoma.
The Commission accordingly assessed the impact of the breaches by BLD Solar and Topray Solar on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
S spremljanjem niso bile razkrite nobene sistematične kršitve s strani velikega števila proizvajalcev izvoznikov ali CCCME.
The responsibility for the breaches lies alone with the exporting producers in question; the monitoring has not revealed any systematic breaches by a major number of exporting producers or the CCCME.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da delovanje v skladu z zavezo na splošno ni ogroženo in da ni razlogov za umik sprejetja zaveze za vse proizvajalce izvoznike in CCCME.
The Commission therefore concluded that the overall functioning of the undertaking is not affected and that there are no grounds for withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
F. PISNA STALIŠČA IN ZASLIŠANJA
F. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HEARINGS
Zainteresirane strani so imele priložnost, da izrazijo svoja stališča in predložijo pripombe v skladu s členom 8(9) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 13(9) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe.
Interested parties were granted the opportunity to be heard and to comment pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
Komisija je prejela pripombe združenja, ki predstavlja proizvajalce Unije za solarne module in celice.
The Commission received comments from an association representing the Union producers of solar modules and cells.
Združenje je od Komisije zahtevalo, da z retroaktivnim učinkom umakne sprejetje zaveze za dva proizvajalca izvoznika, ker meni, da so zadevne kršitve resno in večkrat škodovale industriji Unije ter izkrivljale trg Unije.
The association requested the Commission to withdraw the acceptance of the undertaking for the two exporting producers with retroactive effect as it considers that these breaches had seriously and repeatedly harmed the Union industry and distorted the Union market.
Komisija je preverila, ali obstajajo razlogi za razveljavitev posameznih računov na podlagi zaveze, ki sta jih izdala dva od proizvajalcev izvoznikov v skladu s členom 3(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013 in členom 2(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013.
The Commission examined whether there are reasons to invalidate individual undertaking invoices issued by the two exporting producers pursuant to Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013.
Kar zadeva družbo BLD Solar, Komisija ni mogla odkriti neposredne povezave med trgovinskimi praksami iz uvodnih izjav 36 do 41 in posameznimi računi na podlagi zaveze.
As regards BLD Solar, the Commission could not establish that there was a direct link between the trade practises described in recitals (36) to (41) and individual undertaking invoices.
Zato meni, da razveljavitev računov na podlagi zaveze ni primerna.
Therefore, it considers that it is not appropriate to invalidate any undertaking invoices.
Kar zadeva družbo Topray Solar, je Komisija preučila primere, v katerih so bili izdelki, ki jih zaveza zajema, prodani isti stranki skupaj z izdelki, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, in primere, v katerih so bili računi na podlagi zaveze izdani za prodajo izdelkov, ki jih zaveza ne zajema.
Regarding Topray Solar, the Commission considered the cases where products covered by the undertaking were sold together with products not covered by the undertaking to the same customer and where undertaking invoices were issued for the sales of products not covered by the undertaking.
Komisija je menila, da je imela v teh primerih družba Topray Solar možnost z izdajo računov na podlagi zaveze prikriti prekoračitve omejitve vzporedne prodaje.
The Commission considered that Topray Solar, by issuing undertaking invoices in these cases, was in a position to conceal the excess of the parallel sales limit.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da obstaja neposredna povezava med trgovinsko prakso, ki predstavlja kršitev zaveze in izdajo posameznih računov na podlagi zaveze.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is a direct link between the trade practise constituting a breach of the undertaking and the issue of such individual undertaking invoices.
G. RAZVELJAVITEV RAČUNOV NA PODLAGI ZAVEZE
G. INVALIDATION OF UNDERTAKING INVOICES
Prodajne transakcije družbe Topray Solar iz uvodne izjave 57 so povezane z naslednjimi računi na podlagi zaveze:
The sales transactions referred to in recital (57) by Topray Solar are linked to the following undertaking invoices:
Številka trgovinskega računa, priloženega blagu, ki je predmet zaveze
Date
Komisija je razkrila razloge za razveljavitev in seznam računov družbi Topray Solar in zadevnim uvoznikom, o katerih je družba Topray Solar poročala v svojih rednih poročilih.
The Commission disclosed the reasons for invalidation and the list of invoices to Topray Solar and to the importers concerned as reported by Topray Solar in its periodic reports.
Komisija je družbi Topray Solar in več uvoznikom odobrila določeno podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb na podlagi ustrezne obrazložitve.
The Commission granted certain extensions to both Topray Solar and several importers to submit their comments upon reasoned justification.
Družba Topray Solar je podala splošno izjavo, da je pomotoma poročala o solarnih izdelkih, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, in da taka napaka ne bi zadoščala za sprožitev razveljavitve računov na podlagi zaveze.
Topray Solar made general statements that it had mistakenly reported the solar products not covered by the undertaking and that such mistake would not be sufficient to trigger the invalidation of undertaking invoices.
Navedla je tudi, da ni nameravala kršiti zaveze.
It also submitted that it had no intention to breach the undertaking.
Družba Topray Solar je navedla tudi, da je napačno razumela, kateri solarni izdelki niso zajeti v zavezi.
Topray Solar further submitted that it had a misunderstanding of the solar products not covered by the undertaking.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 29 in 31, je izvoznik zavezan račune na podlage zaveze izdajati v skladu z določbami zaveze.
As referred to in recitals (29) and (31), the exporter is obliged to issue undertaking invoices according to the provisions of the undertaking.
O vseh težavah ali vprašanjih v zvezi z izvajanjem se je treba posvetovati s Komisijo.
Any difficulties or questions regarding the implementation have to be consulted with the Commission.
V zvezi s tem se Komisija sklicuje na podrobne smernice, ki so bile izdane glede pojma „zajeti izdelek“.
In this regard, the Commission refers to comprehensive guidance that had been issued with regard to the term ‘product covered’.
Poleg tega je Komisija organizirala več seminarjev za usposabljanje, med drugim tudi v zvezi s tem vprašanjem.
Moreover, the Commission held several training seminars, inter alia, on this issue.
Ocena, ali je račun na podlagi zaveze treba razveljaviti, temelji samo na dokaznem materialu.
Finally, the assessment whether an undertaking invoice should be invalidated is only based on factual evidence.
Zaradi navedenega se argumente, navedene v uvodni izjavi 60, zavrže.
Therefore, the arguments mentioned in recital (60) are rejected.
Družba Topray Solar je tudi nasprotovala razveljavitvi računov.
Topray Solar also contested the invalidation of invoices.
Trdila je, da člen 8 in člen 10(5) osnovne protidampinške uredbe ter člen 13 in člen 16(5) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe ne vsebujejo pooblastila za razveljavitev računov na podlagi zaveze.
It claimed that Article 8 and 10(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13 and 16(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation do not contain an empowerment to invalidate undertaking invoices.
Trdila je, da Komisija ne more uvesti dajatev oziroma carini naložiti obračunavanje dajatev na uvoz, sproščen v prosti promet pred datumom umika sprejetja zaveze, če uvoz ni bil registriran.
It claimed that the Commission cannot impose duties/order customs to levy duties on imports released for free circulation before the date of the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking if imports have not been registered.
Trditev temelji na razumevanju, da se Komisija lahko odloči za uvedbo začasnih dajatev pred umikom sprejetja zaveze.
The claim is based on an understanding that the Commission may decide to impose provisional duties before the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking.
V skladu s členom 8(10) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 13(10) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe se lahko začasna dajatev uvede v primeru, ko preiskava, ki je pripeljala do zaveze, še ni zaključena.
According to Article 8(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(10) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, a provisional duty may be imposed in case where the investigation that led to the undertaking has not been completed.
To pa ne velja v sedanji zadevi, pri kateri so se preiskave zaključile z uvedbo dokončnih protidampinških in izravnalnih dajatev.
This is not the case in the case at hand where the investigations have been completed with the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
Poleg tega pooblastilo za razveljavitev računov na podlagi zaveze izhaja neposredno iz člena 3(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013 in člena 2(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013.
Moreover, the empowerment to invalidate undertaking invoices stems directly from Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013.
Posledično se v skladu s členom 8(9) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 13(9) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe v primeru kršitve ali umika sprejetja zaveze s strani Komisije samodejno uporabijo dokončne dajatve.
Consequently, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, in case of breach or withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking by the Commission, the definitive duties shall automatically apply.
Trditev se zato zavrne.
The claim is therefore rejected.
Poleg tega je šest uvoznikov predložilo pripombe v zvezi z razveljavitvijo računov na podlagi zavez.
In addition, six importers submitted comments concerning the invalidation of undertaking invoices.
Dva uvoznika sta trdila, da sta z družbo Topray Solar trgovala v dobri veri in nista mogla vedeti, da družba Topray Solar ni spoštovala zaveze.
Two importers claimed that they had traded in good faith with Topray Solar and could not be in position to know that Topray Solar did not respect the undertaking.
Prvi uvoznik je tudi trdil, da je bil delež izdelkov, ki niso bili zajeti, v primerjavi s solarnimi moduli, ki jih je kupil od družbe Topray Solar, zelo majhen.
The first importer also claimed that the products not covered amounted to a small fraction compared to the solar modules it purchased from Topray Solar.
Poleg tega je prvi uvoznik navedel, da bi bila razveljavitev računov zanj uničujoča in da bi zaradi tega postal odgovoren za okoliščine, na katere nima vpliva.
In addition, the first importer submitted that the invalidation of invoices would be devastating and that it would become liable for circumstances beyond its control.
Drugi uvoznik je trdil, da je z družbo Topray Solar sklenil en sam trgovinski posel avgusta 2013 in da takrat ni vedel za sprejetje zaveze.
The second importer claimed to have only one commercial transaction with Topray Solar in August 2013 and it did not know about the acceptance of the undertaking at that time.
Komisija poudarja, da se morajo uvozniki zavedati, da lahko v času sprejetja deklaracije o sprostitvi v prosti promet carinski dolg nastane kot del običajnega poslovnega tveganja, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 11 in 12, čeprav je Komisija sprejela zavezo, ki jo je ponudil proizvajalec, od katerega so neposredno ali posredno kupovali, kot je določeno v Sklepu 2013/423/EU o sprejetju zaveze in potrjeno z Izvedbenim sklepom 2013/707/EU.
The Commission recalls that importers should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation as described in recitals 11 and 12 even if an undertaking offered by the manufacturer from whom they were buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted by the Commission, as stipulated in Decision 2013/423/EU accepting the undertaking and confirmed by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da delež nezajetega izdelka, ki ga je kupil prvi uvoznik, ni bil zelo majhen: močno je presegal omejitev vzporedne prodaje.
The Commission also notes that the product not covered purchased by the first importer did not represent a small fraction: it was well beyond the parallel sales limit.
Poleg tega je Komisija poudarila, da je bil Sklep 2013/423/EU objavljen pred sklenitvijo prodajne transakcije iz trditve drugega uvoznika.
In addition, the Commission points out that Decision 2013/423/EU was published prior to the conclusion of the sales transaction claimed by the second importer.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da noben izmed uvoznikov ni ugovarjal, da so bili računi na podlagi zaveze izdani za izdelke, ki niso zajeti v zavezi.
The Commission also notes that none of the importers contested that the undertaking invoices were issued for products not covered by the undertaking.
Trditve obeh uvoznikov se zato zavrnejo.
The arguments of the two importers are therefore rejected.
Tretji uvoznik je predložil samo ustrezno dokumentacijo, povezano z računom na podlagi zaveze, katerega razveljavitev je predlagala Komisija.
The third importer submitted only the respective documentation related to the undertaking invoice which the Commission proposes to invalidate.
Podobno kot druga dva uvoznika, navedena v uvodnih izjavah 65 in 66, tudi ta uvoznik ni ugovarjal, da je bil račun na podlagi zaveze izdan za izdelek, ki ga zaveza ne zajema.
Similarly to the other two importers referred to in recitals (65) and (66), this importer did not contest that the undertaking invoice was issued for a product not covered by the undertaking.
Komisija zato potrjuje svojo začetno ugotovitev, da je račun na podlagi zaveze treba razveljaviti.
Therefore, the Commission confirms its initial finding that the undertaking invoice has to be invalidated.
Četrti uvoznik je trdil, da ne more nositi odgovornosti za kršitev, ki jo je zagrešila družba Topray Solar, in da je bil račun izdan za sončne panele, ki so izdelek, zajet v zavezi.
The fourth importer claimed that it cannot be hold responsible for the breach of Topray Solar and the undertaking invoice was issued for solar panels, which are product covered by the undertaking.
Poleg tega je ta uvoznik predložil splošne pripombe glede tega, da ni bil na voljo razumen rok za predložitev.
In addition, this importer submitted general comments concerning the absence of a reasonable time limit for submission.
Peti uvoznik je navedel, da je bila cena sončnih modulov, kupljenih od družbe Topray Solar, znatno višja od domnevne minimalne uvozne cene, in da je drugih izdelkov (regulatorjev) uvozil enako ali manj kot sončnih panelov.
The fifth importer submitted that the price of solar modules purchased from Topray Solar were well above the alleged MIP and that they imported less or the same quantity of other products (controllers) than solar panels.
Komisija najprej poudarja, da so v zavezi „zajeti izdelek“ samo sončni paneli, ki so izrecno navedeni v uvodni izjavi 6.
The Commission first recalls that the ‘product covered’ by the undertaking are only those solar panels that are explicitly referred to in recital (6).
Minimalna uvozna cena se ne uporablja za izdelke, ki jih zaveza ne zajema, zlasti za sončne panele, ki ne spadajo med opredeljene v uvodni izjavi 6.
The MIP is not applicable for products not covered by the undertaking, in particular for solar panels falling outside the scope defined in recital (6).
Prodajno ceno za izdelek, ki ga zaveza ne zajema, je nesmiselno primerjati z domnevno minimalno uvozno ceno.
It is meaningless to compare the sales price of the product not covered by the undertaking to the alleged MIP.
Ti izdelki niso bili predmet preiskave, zato njihove cene ni mogoče preveriti in primerjati z domnevno minimalno uvozno ceno.
These products were not subject to the investigation; hence their price cannot be verified and compared to the alleged MIP.
Družba Topray Solar računov na podlagi zaveze sploh ne bi smela izdati za izdelke, ki v zavezi niso zajeti.
Topray Solar should not have issued undertaking invoices at all for products not covered by the undertaking.
Z izdajanjem teh računov na podlagi zaveze, ki je pomenilo kršitev zaveze, je družba Topray Solar lahko prikrila prekoračitev omejitve vzporedne prodaje.
By issuing these undertaking invoices in breach of the undertaking, Topray Solar was in position to conceal the excess of the parallel sales limit.
Prodaja regulatorjev, ki jih navaja peti uvoznik, je dodatna kršitev že obstoječe kršitve omejitve vzporedne prodaje, opisane v uvodni izjavi 44.
The sales of controllers referred to by the fifth importer constitute yet an additional layer to the already existing breach of the parallel sales limit as referred in recital (44).
Kar zadeva razumen rok za predložitev pripomb Komisija opozarja, da kljub temu, da je bilo četrtemu uvozniku odobreno podaljšanje roka, ta ni predložil dodatnih pripomb o vsebini razkritja.
As regards the reasonable time limit to provide comments, the Commission recalls that despite the extension granted to the fourth importer, it failed to submit further comments on the substance of the disclosure.
Komisija te trditve zato zavrne.
The Commission therefore rejects these arguments.
Šesti uvoznik je trdil, da so bili drugi izdelki, za katere so bili izdani računi na podlagi zaveze, sončni paneli, kupljeni za demonstracijo.
The sixth importer claimed that the other products for which undertaking invoices were issued being solar panels purchased for demonstrative purposes.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bi se del računa na podlagi zaveze lahko štel kot vzorec in bi uvoznik lahko uporabil ustrezni carinski postopek za vzorce za njihovo sprostitev v prosti promet v Uniji.
The Commission notes that indeed part of the undertaking invoice could have been considered as a sample and the importer could have followed the respective customs procedure for samples to release them into free circulation in the Union.
Vendar se to ni zgodilo in uvoznik ni ugovarjal, da je družba Topray Solar izdala račune na podlagi zaveze za izdelek, ki ni bil zajet v zavezi.
However, this was not the case and the importer did not contest that Topray Solar issued undertaking invoices for product not covered by the undertaking.
Zato se ta trditev zavrne.
Therefore, this argument is rejected.
Zato se v skladu s členom 3(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013 in členom 2(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013 ti računi razglasijo za neveljavne.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, these invoices are declared invalid.
Carinski dolg, ki je nastal ob sprejetju deklaracije za sprostitev v prosti promet, bi morali nacionalni carinski organi v skladu s členom 105(3) do (6) Uredbe (EU) št. 952/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [30] izterjati ob začetku veljavnosti umika zaveze za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
The customs debt incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release for free circulation should be recovered by the national customs authorities under Article 105(3)-(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [30] when the withdrawal of the undertaking in relation to the exporting producer enters into force.
Nacionalni carinski organi, ki so pristojni za pobiranje dajatev, bodo o tem ustrezno obveščeni.
The national customs authorities responsible for the collection of duties will be informed accordingly.
V tem okviru Komisija poudarja, da je v skladu s členom 3(1)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge III Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013 in členom 2(1)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge 2 Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013 uvoz oproščen dajatev le, če so na računu navedeni cena in morebitni rabati za zajeti izdelek.