natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They alleged that anti-dumping measures would be against the interests of smaller users because they will have an anti-competitive effect (Union producers will increase their prices) and because Union producers do not produce certain types of cold-rolled flat steel products.
Drugi argumenti
These allegations were already dealt with in recitals 220 to 223 of the provisional Regulation but no substantive additional information for such allegations was provided after the provisional or definitive disclosure.
Nekatere strani so trdile, da je Komisija pristranska do proizvajalcev Unije in da poskuša za vsako ceno najti damping.
Thus, the argument is rejected.
Ta zgornja trditev ni bila podrobneje utemeljena.
Other arguments
Komisija poudarja, da preiskava poteka v okviru veljavnega pravnega okvira ob upoštevanju najvišjih standardov nevtralnosti in preglednosti.
Some parties claimed that the Commission was biased towards Union producers and trying to find dumping at all cost.
Nekatere strani so trdile, da dejstvo, da so proizvajalci Unije izdelek v preiskavi uvažali, kaže na to, da ne zmorejo zadostiti povpraševanju v Uniji.
This above claim was not further substantiated.
Kot je bilo navedeno tudi v uvodni izjavi 191 začasne uredbe, je več proizvajalcev Unije del integriranih jeklarskih skupin z neodvisnimi družbami za trgovanje.
The Commission underlines that the investigation is conducted within the applicable legal framework with the highest standards for neutrality and transparency.
Ti trgovci lahko svobodno izbirajo vir, od katerega kupujejo, vključno z zadevnima državama.
According to some parties, the fact that Union producers imported the product under investigation shows that they cannot meet demand in the Union.
Še enkrat je treba poudariti, da so taki nakupi predstavljali manj kot 1 % prodaje pritožnikov.
As also stated in recital 191 of the provisional Regulation, a number of Union producers are part of integrated steel groups with independent trading companies.
Razen samoobrambe in ohranjanja poslovnih odnosov nič v spisu ne nakazuje, da je bil razlog za uvoz dejstvo, da proizvajalci Unije niso zmogli zadostiti povpraševanju.
These traders are free to purchase from whichever source they choose, including the countries concerned.
Sklep o interesu Unije
It needs to be reiterated that these purchases represented less than 1 % of the sales of the complainants.
Drugih pripomb v zvezi z interesom Unije ni bilo, zato se sklepi iz uvodnih izjav od 229 do 232 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Apart from reasons of self-defence and maintaining commercial relationships, there is nothing on the file that would suggest that such imports were made due to Union producers not being able to meet demand.
DOKONČNI PROTIDAMPINŠKI UKREPI
Conclusion on Union interest
Stopnja odprave škode
In the absence of any other comments concerning the Union interest, the conclusions reached in recitals 229 to 232 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Po začasnem razkritju je več strani dalo pripombe glede 5-odstotnega ciljnega dobička, začasno uporabljenega za izračun nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen, kot je pojasnjen v uvodnih izjavah 237 in 238 začasne uredbe.
DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da dobiček v sektorju ne bi presegal 5 %, druga zainteresirana stran pa je trdila, da je 5-odstotni ciljni dobiček previsok.
Injury elimination level
Te trditve niso bile utemeljene.
Following provisional disclosure, several parties made comments on the 5 % target profit provisionally used for calculating underselling, as explained in recitals 237 to 238 of the provisional Regulation.
Eurofer je menil, da je 5-odstotni ciljni dobiček veliko prenizek.
One interested party claimed that the profit in the sector would not have been more than 5 %, whereas another interested party submitted that a 5 % target profit was excessive.
Prvič, zavrnil je sklicevanje na ciljni dobiček GOES, saj naj bi bili med drugim raziskave in razvoj, trgi in narava jeklarstva drugačni.
These claims were not substantiated.
Drugič, Eurofer je trdil, da razpoložljivi in preverljivi dokazi iz obdobja pred letom 2009 kažejo, da bi bilo treba uporabiti vsaj 10-odstotni ciljni dobiček.
Eurofer considered the 5 % target profit far too low.
Pri teh trditvah se je skliceval deloma na informacije, ki so jih predložili vzorčeni proizvajalci pritožniki, ki so na zahtevo Komisije predložili podatke o dobičkonosnosti za – med drugim – obdobje 2005–2008, in deloma na dobičkonosnost, ki so jo v navedenem obdobju dosegli nekateri drugi proizvajalci Unije.
Firstly, it rejected the reference to GOES target profit on the basis that, inter alia, R&D, markets and the steel nature were different.
Eurofer je dodal, da ciljni dobiček ne bi smel temeljiti na letih, ko je nanj vplivala gospodarska kriza ali dampinški uvoz iz zadevnih držav.
Secondly, Eurofer claimed that available and verifiable evidence from before 2009 showed that the target profit used should be at least 10 %.
Tretjič, Eurofer je trdil, da bi bilo treba ciljni dobiček prilagoditi glede na uvoz po obdobju preiskave in dodatno nepošteno zniževanje cen zadevnega uvoza, ki se še vedno ni končalo.
While claiming so, Eurofer based itself partly on the information provided by the complaining producers which had been sampled and which had provided, at the Commission's request, profitability data for inter alia the period 2005-2008, and partly on the profitability achieved by certain other Union producers in that period.
Poudaril je tudi, da so se institucije Unije v preteklosti že zanašale na višjo raven dobička od običajne, da bi tako izravnale škodo, ki jo je povzročil dampinški uvoz.
Eurofer added that the target profit should not derive from years affected either by the economic crisis or by dumped imports from the countries concerned.
[9]
Thirdly, Eurofer claimed that the target profit should be adjusted in light of post-investigation period imports and an ongoing additional unfair price depreciation of the imports concerned.
Te pripombe so bile skrbno analizirane.
It also pointed out that in the past Union institutions had already relied on a higher than normal profit level to offset the injury caused by dumped imports [9].
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 236 začasne uredbe, bi bilo treba najprej opozoriti, da je bilo v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da je bil obseg uvoza iz zadevnih držav v celotnem obravnavanem obdobju velik, kar je med drugim negativno vplivalo tudi na dobičkonosnost industrije Unije.
These comments were duly analysed.
Zato za nobeno leto v obravnavanem obdobju ni mogoče reči, da je bil v njem dosežen dobiček, ki bi lahko bil razumno dosežen v normalnih konkurenčnih pogojih.
It should first be remembered that, as explained in recital 236 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation had established that throughout the period considered there were significant volumes of imports from the countries concerned which had an adverse effect on, inter alia, the profitability of the Union industry.
Glede na to, da edina navedba, predložena v zvezi s tem v začasni fazi, ni bila dovolj utemeljena, je Komisija začasno določila ciljni dobiček na podlagi ugotovitev iz preiskav v zvezi z drugimi izdelki iz jekla.
Therefore, none of the years in the period considered could be deemed indicative for the profit that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition.
Vendar se je Komisija po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov poglobila v zadevo, in sicer ne samo zaradi pripomb, prejetih po razkritju, ampak tudi z zahtevo po več podatkih in njihovo analizo v zvezi s tem.
As the only submission received in this respect during the provisional stage was not sufficiently substantiated, the Commission chose to provisionally establish the target profit on the basis of findings in investigations concerning other steel products.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v uvodni izjavi 8 zgoraj, je Komisija po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov od vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije zahtevala, naj predložijo podatke o dobičkonosnosti v zvezi s podobnimi izdelki, prodanimi na trgu Unije med letoma 2005 in 2010 (enake podatke so za obdobje od leta 2011 do obdobja preiskave že predložili s prvotnim izpolnjenim vprašalnikom).
However, after the imposition of provisional measures the Commission has further looked into this issue not only in view of the comments received following disclosure, but also by requesting and analysing more information in this respect.
Ti podatki so bili predloženi in natančno preverjeni.
Indeed, as already referred to in recital 8 above, following the imposition of provisional measures the Commission requested the sampled Union producers to provide profitability data with regard to the like product when sold on the Union market for the years 2005 to 2010 (the same information for the period 2011 to the investigation period had already been provided through their original questionnaire response).
Tehtano povprečje dobičkonosnosti za obdobje 2005–2008, ki ga je bilo mogoče izračunati na navedeni podlagi, v vsakem od teh let sega od 9 do 15 %.
This information was provided and duly verified.
Obdobje 2005–2008 se zdi reprezentativno za določitev ciljnega dobička, saj ga ni prizadela niti gospodarska kriza, ki je na sektor močno vplivala od leta 2009, niti zanje ne veljajo izjemno ugodne tržne razmere.
The weighted average profitability for the years 2005 to 2008 which could be calculated on that basis was for each of these years in the range of 9 %-15 %.
Poleg tega obseg uvoza iz zadevnih in drugih držav v teh letih nakazuje, da je bila konkurenca močna.
The years 2005 to 2008 appeared to be representative years for establishing a target profit, as they were neither affected by the economic crisis, which impacted the sector strongly as from 2009, nor were they characterised by exceptionally favourable market circumstances.
Glede na to Komisija meni, da je stopnja dobička, ki jo je industrija dosegla v zadnjem reprezentativnem letu, tj. letu 2008, primernejša podlaga za določitev ciljnega dobička v tej industriji kot 5-odstotni ciljni dobiček, ki se je začasno uporabljal.
Moreover, the volume of imports from the countries concerned and other countries in these years indicated that competition was strong.
Navedeno tehtano povprečje stopnje dobička znaša 9,9 %, izračun nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen pa je bil primerno prilagojen.
On the basis of the above the Commission therefore considers that the profit margin achieved by the industry in the most recent representative year, i.e. the year 2008, is a more appropriate basis for a target profit, for this industry, than the 5 % target profit provisionally used.
Glede na to, da temelji na dejanskih podatkih o dobičkonosnosti zadevnega izdelka, so to najboljši podatki, ki so v ta namen na voljo.
That weighted average profit margin amounts to 9,9 % and the underselling calculations have been adjusted accordingly.
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki so v pripombah po dokončnem razkritju ponovno izpostavili vprašanje stopnje škode, na podlagi katere je bila določena stopnja odprave škode.
Given that it is based on actual profitability data for the product concerned it is the best information available for this purpose.
V skladu s točko 60 sodbe EFMA [10] je bilo poudarjeno, da „[…] mora biti [uporabljena stopnja dobička] pri izračunu ciljne cene za odpravo zadevne škode […] omejena na stopnjo dobička, ki bi jo lahko dosegla industrija Skupnosti pod normalnimi konkurenčnimi pogoji, če ne bi bilo dampinškega uvoza“.
Certain exporting producers returned to the issue of the injury margins used to establish the injury elimination level in their comments which followed the definitive disclosure.
Poleg tega so navedli, da dobiček, dosežen v letu 2011, predstavlja zanesljivo stopnjo dobička brez dampinškega uvoza.
Quoting paragraph 60 of the EFMA judgment [10] it was pointed out that ‘in calculating the target price that will remove the injury in question [the profit margin to be used] must be limited to the profit margin which the Community industry could reasonably count on under normal conditions of competition, in the absence of dumped imports’.
Pregled cen na trgu Unije, podatkov o uvozu in potrošnji Unije je pokazal, da so veljali normalni konkurenčni pogoji.
They further indicated that the profit achieved in the year 2011 constitutes a reliable profit margin in the absence of dumped imports.
Metoda, uporabljena za določitev normalnega dobička za stopnjo odprave škode, je torej povsem v skladu s sodbo EFMA in trditev je bila zavrnjena.
The claim that this constitutes ‘cherry picking’ is baseless since the year 2008 was by no means the highest profit year from the period 2005-2008.
Iste strani so trdile, da zainteresirane strani v primeru neobstoja „ostalih kazalnikov škode“ v obdobju 2005–2008 niso mogle predložiti upoštevnih pripomb glede primernosti stopnje ciljnega dobička.
2008 was selected as it was the most recent year with normal conditions of competition.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da sta določanje zadnjega leta, v katerem so veljale normalne tržne razmere, in ocena razmer v industriji Unije v obravnavanem obdobju dva ločena postopka, pri katerih Komisija ne zahteva in/ali analizira enakih informacij.
Therefore, the method used to establish a normal profit for the injury elimination level is fully in line with the EFMA judgment and the claim was rejected.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
The same exporting producers claimed that, as indicated in recital 122 above, the Commission had disregarded events that took place in 2010 from its analysis of the situation of the Union industry on the ground that they took place before the period of analysis whereas it resorted to the year 2008 to determine target profit.
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da ne bi smeli uporabiti podatkov o dobičkonosnosti iz leta 2008, saj ti ne spadajo v obdobje od leta 2011 do obdobja preiskave.
In this regard, it is noted that while the period considered for the analysis of the situation of the Union industry was limited to the period from 2011 to the investigation period, as defined in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation, there are no legal boundaries that prevent the Commission from reverting to periods outside the period considered in order to establish a reasonable target profit, as long as the period chosen is representative of the profit level that could be achieved in the absence of dumped imports.
Vendar iz zgoraj navedene sodbe EFMA jasno izhaja, da v obravnavanem obdobju nobeno obdobje ni primerno za določitev ciljnega dobička.
This is duly explained in recital 157 above.
Komisija tako kot v začasni fazi ni uporabila zanesljivih, preverjenih in uporabnih podatkov o dobičkonosnosti, ki bi jih zagotovila industrija, temveč se je zanašala na stopnje dobičkonosnosti, ki so se uporabile v drugih preiskavah.
Consequently, this claim has to be rejected.
Ker pa je po začasnem razkritju pridobila in preverila dodatne podatke o dobičkonosnosti in ker se je izkazalo, da ti podatki kažejo na dobiček, ki bi bil lahko razumno dosežen v običajnih konkurenčnih pogojih v tem sektorju, je uporaba tega dobička primernejša od uporabe vrednosti, na katero vplivajo različne tržne razmere (izdelki, konkurenčni pogoji), pa čeprav so poznejši.
The same parties claimed that, in the absence of ‘other injury indicators’ for the period 2005-2008, interested parties could not submit meaningful comments on the appropriateness of the level of the target profit.
En ruski proizvajalec izvoznik je navedel, da stopnja nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen ni bila izračunana za vrste izdelkov, ki so jih povezani uvozniki obdelali ob vstopu na trg Unije.
In this regard, it is noted that determining the most recent year where normal market conditions prevailed and assessing the situation of the Union industry over the period considered are two separate exercises whereby the Commission does not require and/or analyse the same set of information.
Trditev je bila sprejeta, saj so bili na voljo podatki, s katerimi je tako prodajo mogoče upoštevati, zato so bile stopnje nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih in ciljnih cen ustrezno posodobljene.
The ‘other injury indicators’ are not relevant in order to determine whether normal market conditions prevail in a certain year.
Isti ruski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da raven nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen ni bila točno določena.
This claim was therefore rejected.
Navedel je, da so bile vrednosti proizvodnih stroškov industrije Unije, uporabljene pri izračunih nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen, za nekatere vrste izdelkov ob primerjavi s skoraj enakimi vrstami izdelkov zelo visoke ter da jih Komisija ne bi smela upoštevati ali pa bi jih morala prilagoditi realni ravni.
Certain exporting producers claimed that the 2008 profitability data should not have been used because it does not fall within the period 2011 to the investigation period.
Navedel je tudi, da čeprav so povprečne izvozne cene CIF kitajskega uvoza 3 % višje, je stopnja nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen ruskih izvoznikov dvakrat višja.
However, it is clear from the abovementioned EFMA judgment that during the period considered none qualifies for establishing a target profit.
Nazadnje je navedel še, da količina primerljivih izdelkov, ki jih proda industrija Unije, predstavlja le 6,4 % njenega celotnega obsega izvoza.
As at the provisional stage, the Commission did not avail of reliable, verified and usable profitability information from the industry, it relied on profitability rates used in other investigations.
Vendar je Komisija po dodatnem preverjanju ugotovila, da so podatki o proizvodnih stroških industrije Unije točni.
However, as it had obtained and verified additional profitability information after provisional disclosure, and that information proved to be indicative for a profit that could reasonably be achieved under normal conditions of competition in this sector, the use of such profit is more appropriate than the use of a figure tainted by different market circumstances (products, conditions of competition), even if more recent.
Glede razlike v vrednosti CIF in stopnji nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen pa je treba opozoriti, da je taka primerjava poenostavljena in ne upošteva možnih variacij v ceni in stroških med vrstami izdelka na strani Unije ali strani proizvajalca izvoznika.
One Russian exporting producer indicated that no underselling margin calculation had been performed for product types which were processed by related importers on entry to the Union market.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da v osnovni uredbi ni predviden prag, kar zadeva primerjavo med obsegom izvoza in ustreznim obsegom prodaje podobnih izdelkov s strani industrije Unije.
As data was available to include such sales, this claim has been accepted and the undercutting and underselling margins have been updated accordingly.
Kakor koli, ob upoštevanju trditve iz uvodne izjave 162 je količina primerljivih izdelkov, ki jih je prodala industrija Unije, predstavljala 10 % njenega celotnega obsega izvoza.
The same Russian exporting producer argued that the determination of the level of underselling was inaccurate.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti tudi, da je mogoče več kot 90 % izdelkov, ki jih v Unijo izvozi ta konkretni proizvajalec izvoznik, primerjati s primerljivim izdelkom Unije.
It indicated that the cost of production values of the Union industry which were used for the underselling calculations were, for some product types, very high, when compared to nearly identical product types and that the Commission should have either disregarded or adjusted them to a realistic level.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba to trditev zavrniti.
It also stated that although the average CIF export prices for Chinese imports is 3 % higher, the underselling margin of Russian exporters is double.
Več proizvajalcev izvoznikov je izpodbijalo uporabo člena 2(9), ki ga je Komisija uporabila pri izračunu škode, pri čemer so navedli, da se člen 2(9) uvršča med določbe osnovne uredbe o dampingu in da ga ni mogoče po analogiji uporabiti za izračun škode.
Finally, it stated that the volume of comparable products sold by the Union industry represented only 6,4 % of its total export volume.
Trdili so, da bi morala cena izdelka v prostem prometu temeljiti na ceni, ki jo povezani uvozniki v Uniji dejansko zaračunajo prvim neodvisnim strankam v Uniji.
After rechecking, the Commission established however that the cost of production data of the Union industry were accurate.
Z izračunom stopnje škode se ugotovi, ali bi uvedba nižje stopnje dajatve (od tiste, ki temelji na stopnji dampinga) na izvozno ceno dampinškega uvoza zadostovala za odpravo škode, ki jo povzroči dampinški uvoz.
As far as the difference in CIF value and underselling margin is concerned, it is noted that such comparison is simplistic and does not take account of the possible price and cost variations among the product types on the Union or on the exporting producer side.
Ta ocena bi morala temeljiti na izvozni ceni na ravni meja Unije, tj. ravni, ki se šteje za primerljivo s ceno franko tovarna industrije Unije.
It is further noted that the basic Regulation does not foresee any threshold with regard to the comparison between the volume exported and the corresponding volume sold by the Union industry for similar products.
Pri izvozu prek povezanih uvoznikov je izvozna cena po analogiji s pristopom, uporabljenim pri izračunih stopnje dampinga, konstruirana na podlagi cene pri nadaljnji prodaji prvi neodvisni stranki, ustrezno prilagojeni v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
In any case, after taking into account the claim referred to in recital 162, the volume of comparable products sold by the Union industry represented 10 % of its total export volume.
Ker je izvozna cena nujen element za izračun stopnje škode in ker je ta člen edini člen osnovne uredbe, v katerem so navedena navodila o oblikovanju izvozne cene, je njegova uporaba po analogiji utemeljena.
In this regard, it is also noted that over 90 % of the products exported to the Union by this specific exporting producer could be matched with a comparable Union product.
Poleg navedenega velja, da bi metoda, ki jo zagovarja ta stran, povzročila neenako obravnavo pri izračunu njenih stopenj in stopenj drugih vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki prodajajo neodvisnim uvoznikom.
On the basis of the above, this claim has to be rejected.
Metodologija, ki je bila uporabljena za druge vzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike, je temeljila na izvozni ceni na ravni CIF, ki seveda izključuje PSA-stroške in dobiček pri nadaljnji prodaji v Uniji po carinjenju.
Several exporting producers challenged the application by the Commission of Article 2(9) for the injury calculations, stating that Article 2(9) appears under the dumping provisions of the basic Regulation and could not be used by analogy for calculating injury.
Komisija meni, da na določitev ustrezne uvozne cene za izračun stopnje nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih in ciljnih cen ne bi smelo vplivati to, ali je izvoz namenjen povezanim ali neodvisnim gospodarskim subjektom v Uniji.
They argued that the free circulation price should be based on the price actually charged by its related importers in the Union to the first independent customers in the Union.
Metodologija, ki jo je uporabila Komisija, zagotavlja enako obravnavo v obeh primerih.
The purpose of calculating an injury margin is to determine whether imposing a lower duty rate (than the one based on the dumping margin) to the export price of the dumped imports would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports.
Zato je Komisija menila, da je uporabljeni pristop točen, in je te trditve zavrnila.
This assessment should be based on the export price at the Union frontier level which is considered to be a level comparable to the Union industry ex-works price.
Po dokončnem razkritju je ena zainteresirana stran trdila, da zaradi odbitja PSA-stroškov in dobička od prodajne cene ni več mogoče pravilno primerjati nelojalnega nižanja ciljnih cen in stopnje dampinga, saj imenovalec izračuna (tj. cena CIF) ne bi bil več enak.