natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
amending Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 on the waiver from the requirement to submit entry and exit summary declarations for Union goods that are moved across the Neum corridor
o spremembi Uredbe (EU) št. 479/2013 o opustitvi zahteve za vložitev vstopne in izstopne skupne deklaracije za blago Unije, ki se prevaža preko neumskega koridorja
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Akta o pristopu Hrvaške in zlasti člena 43 Akta,
Point (a) of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 [1] provides for a waiver from the requirement to submit entry and exit summary declarations for Union goods that are moved across the Neum corridor, where the consignments of Union goods have a total value not exceeding EUR 10000 and where the Union goods are accompanied by invoices or transport documents fulfilling the conditions in point (b) of that Article (‘the waiver’).
Točka (a) člena 4 Uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 479/2013 [1] določa opustitev zahteve za vložitev vstopne in izstopne skupne deklaracije za blago Unije, ki se prevaža preko neumskega koridorja, če skupna vrednost pošiljk blaga Unije ne presega 10000 EUR in če blago Unije spremljajo računi ali prevozni dokumenti, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje iz točke (b) navedenega člena (v nadaljnjem besedilu: opustitev).
The threshold of EUR 10000 was established by reference to the threshold of an equivalent value which was laid down in Article 317(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 [2].
Prag 10000 EUR je bil določen s sklicevanjem na prag enakovredne vrednosti, ki je bil določen v členu 317(4) Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 2454/93 [2].
Following the entry into force of the Union Customs Code in Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [3], Article 317(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 has been replaced by Article 126(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 [4], which provides for a threshold of EUR 15000.
Po začetku veljavnosti carinskega zakonika Unije iz Uredbe (EU) št. 952/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [3] je bil člen 317(4) Uredbe (EGS) št. 2454/93 nadomeščen s členom 126(1) Delegirane uredbe Komisije (EU) 2015/2446 [4], ki določa prag 15000 EUR.
In order to ensure the uniform application of the Union customs legislation, it is therefore appropriate to align the scope of the waiver to that threshold.
Da se zagotovi enotna uporaba carinske zakonodaje Unije, je zato primerno, da se področje uporabe opustitve prilagodi temu pragu.
For reasons of legal certainty and legal clarity, certain references in Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 should be updated.
Zaradi pravne varnosti in pravne jasnosti bi bilo treba posodobiti določena sklicevanja v Uredbi (EU) št. 479/2013.
It is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 accordingly,
Uredbo (EU) št. 479/2013 je zato primerno ustrezno spremeniti –
Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 is amended as follows:
Uredba (EU) št. 479/2013 se spremeni:
in Article 2, point (1) is replaced by the following:
v členu 2 se točka 1 nadomesti z naslednjim:
“Union goods” means “Union goods” as defined in point (23) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
‚blago Unije‘ pomeni unijsko blago, opredeljeno v točki 23 člena 5 Uredbe (EU) št. 952/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta;
in point (a), the figure ‘EUR 10000’ is replaced by the figure ‘EUR 15000’;
v točki (a) se znesek „10000 EUR“ nadomesti z zneskom „15000 EUR“;
include at least the particulars referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 126(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446;
vsebujejo vsaj podrobnosti iz prvega pododstavka člena 126(2) Delegirane uredbe Komisije (EU) 2015/2446;
Council Regulation (EU) No 479/2013 of 13 May 2013 on the waiver from the requirement to submit entry and exit summary declarations for Union goods that are moved across the Neum corridor (OJ L 139, 25.5.2013, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 479/2013 z dne 13. maja 2013 o opustitvi zahteve za vložitev vstopne in izstopne skupne deklaracije za blago Unije, ki se prevaža preko neumskega koridorja (UL L 139, 25.5.2013, str. 1).
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).’;
Uredba (EU) št. 952/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. oktobra 2013 o carinskem zakoniku Unije (UL L 269, 10.10.2013, str. 1).“;
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/763
of 2 May 2017
z dne 2. maja 2017
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih vrst lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s poreklom iz Republike Koreje
Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 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 (EU) 2016/1036 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2016 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske unije [1] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9(4) Uredbe,
On 16 November 2016 the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of certain lightweight thermal paper (‘LWTP’) originating in the Republic of Korea (‘the country concerned’) by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2005 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je 16. novembra 2016 z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/2005 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih vrst lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s poreklom iz Republike Koreje („zadevna država“) v Unijo.
The investigation was initiated on 18 February 2016 [3] following a complaint lodged on 4 January 2016 by the European Thermal Paper Association (‘ETPA’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain LWTP.
Preiskava se je začela 18. februarja 2016 [3] na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 4. januarja 2016 Evropsko združenje za termoreaktivni papir (European Thermal Paper Association – „ETPA“ ali „pritožnik“) vložilo v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih vrst lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja v Uniji.
As stated in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 14 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2015 do 31. decembra 2015 („obdobje preiskave“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2012 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2012 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), three interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju ključnih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila uvedena začasna protidampinška dajatev („začasno razkritje“), so tri zainteresirane strani predložile pisna stališča glede začasnih ugotovitev.
Both the Hansol Group and ETPA requested the intervention by the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings (‘the Hearing Officer’).
Tako skupina Hansol kot ETPA sta zahtevala posredovanje pooblaščenca za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih („pooblaščenec za zaslišanje“).
During the hearings held on 13 December 2016 and 2 March 2017, the Hansol Group came back on issues discussed in the hearing of 10 March 2016 (i.e. on the exemption from replying to the questionnaire requested for a number of related converters) and contested the methodology used for dumping and injury calculations.
Skupina Hansol se je na zaslišanjih 13. decembra 2016 in 2. marca 2017 vrnila k vprašanjem, o katerih se je razpravljalo na zaslišanju 10. marca 2016 (tj. o izvzetju iz izpolnjevanja vprašalnika, ki se je zahtevalo za več povezanih predelovalcev), in izpodbijala metodologijo, ki se je uporabila za izračune dampinga in škode.
In the hearing of 22 March 2017, the Hansol Group referred to some dumping calculations issues and proposed a change in the form of the measures.
Na zaslišanju 22. marca 2017 se je skupina Hansol sklicevala na nekatera vprašanja v zvezi z izračuni dampinga ter predlagala spremembo oblike ukrepov.
In the hearing of 24 January 2017, ETPA expressed concern about some confidentiality issues and contested the Hansol Group's claims regarding the product scope and the level of support to measures.
Združenje ETPA je na zaslišanju 24. januarja 2017 izrazilo pomisleke glede nekaterih vprašanj zaupnosti ter izpodbijalo trditve skupine Hansol glede obsega izdelka in ravni podpore za ukrepe.
After the imposition of the provisional measures, the Commission continued seeking and verifying all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Komisija je po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov nadaljevala zbiranje in preverjanje vseh informacij, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za oblikovanje dokončnih ugotovitev.
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 into the Union of LWTP originating in the Republic of Korea (the definitive disclosure).
Komisija je vse strani obvestila o ključnih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je nameravala uvesti dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s poreklom iz Republike Koreje v Unijo („dokončno razkritje“).
After definitive disclosure, further changes were made to the dumping and injury calculations for which all parties were informed and granted a period within which they could make comments (the additional final disclosure).
Po dokončnem razkritju so bile opravljene nadaljnje spremembe izračunov dampinga in škode, o katerih so bile vse strani obveščene, pri čemer jim je bil določen rok, v katerem so lahko predložile pripombe (dodatno dokončno razkritje).
Subsequently, all parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the change of the form of the measures.
Nato je bil za vse strani določen rok, v katerem so lahko predložile pripombe glede spremembe oblike ukrepov.
The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani so se proučile in upoštevale, kot je bilo primerno.
As set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is lightweight thermal paper weighing 65 g/m2 or less; in rolls of a width of 20 cm or more, a weight of the roll (including the paper) of 50 kg or more and a diameter of the roll (including the paper) of 40 cm or more (‘jumbo rolls’); with or without a base coat on one or both sides; coated with a thermo-sensitive substance (that is a mixture of dye and a developer that react and form an image when heat is applied) on one or both sides; and with or without a top coat, originating in the Republic of Korea, currently falling within CN codes ex48099000, ex48119000, ex48169000 and ex48239085.
Kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 15 začasne uredbe, je zadevni izdelek lahek termoreaktivni papir s težo 65 g/m2 ali manj, v zvitkih širine 20 cm ali več, pri čemer je teža posameznega zvitka (vključno s papirjem) 50 kg ali več, njegov premer (vključno s papirjem) pa 40 cm ali več („veliki zvitki“), z osnovnim premazom ali brez njega na eni ali obeh straneh, na eni ali obeh straneh prevlečen s toplotno občutljivo snovjo (tj. mešanico barve in razvijalca, ki pod vplivom toplote reagirata in oblikujeta sliko) in z vrhnjim premazom ali brez njega s poreklom iz Republike Koreje, trenutno uvrščen pod oznake KN ex48099000, ex48119000, ex48169000 in ex48239085.
Claims on the product scope
Trditve glede obsega izdelka
The Hansol Group reiterated its request for excluding phenol-free LWTP from the product scope on the grounds that the Commission failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of a series of factors.
Skupina Hansol je znova poudarila svojo zahtevo za izključitev lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola iz obsega izdelka, ker Komisija ni izvedla primerne ocene več dejavnikov.
According to the Hansol Group, phenol-free and other types of LWTP have different chemical composition, production processes and consumer perception.
Po mnenju skupine Hansol so za lahek termoreaktivni papir brez fenola in druge vrste lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja značilni drugačni kemična sestava in proizvodni procesi, poleg tega jih tudi potrošniki dojemajo drugače.
In terms of chemical composition, the party stated that phenol-containing LWTP and phenol-free LWTP have a very different chemical composition on the grounds that they are treated differently in the EU market from a regulatory point of view, depending on the developer used in their production.
V zvezi s kemično sestavo je stran navedla, da se kemična sestava lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s fenolom zelo razlikuje od kemične sestave lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola, saj se z regulativnega vidika na trgu EU obravnavata drugače, in sicer glede na razvijalec, uporabljen pri njuni proizvodnji.
It should however be noted that only bisphenol A (‘BPA’), i.e. one of the numerous possible phenol-containing developers, was recently banned in the Union with effect in 2020, and that there is no separate legal treatment for all other phenol-containing developers.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da se je v Uniji nedavno, pri čemer se bo prepoved začela uporabljati leta 2020, prepovedal le bisfenol A („BPA“), tj. eden izmed številnih možnih razvijalcev s fenolom, in da se noben drug razvijalec s fenolom pravno ne obravnava ločeno.
The alleged more strict regulatory treatment of two bisphenol-containing developers does not demonstrate that all bisphenols and phenolic substances used as developers are different from other colour developers.
Domnevna strožja regulativna obravnava dveh razvijalcev s fenolom ne dokazuje, da se vsi bisfenoli in fenolne snovi, uporabljeni kot razvijalci, razlikujejo od drugih razvijalcev barv.
It is further noted that, although of key importance, the developer is just one of the numerous types of chemicals required to produce LWTP.
Ugotovljeno je bilo še, da je razvijalec kljub svojemu ključnemu pomenu le ena izmed številnih vrst kemikalij, potrebnih za proizvodnjo lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja.
In addition, nothing on file supports the allegation that LWTP containing BPA had already been banned in some Member States.
Poleg tega nič v spisu ne podpira trditve, da je bil lahek termoreaktivni papir z bisfenolom A v nekaterih državah članicah že prepovedan.
Therefore, it is concluded, from a material point of view, that phenol-containing LWTP and phenol-free LWTP do not have a different chemical composition.
Zato se, kar zadeva materiale, sklene, da lahek termoreaktivni papir s fenolom in lahek termoreaktivni papir brez fenola nimata različne kemične sestave.
As regards production processes, the party claimed that it is not possible to produce phenol-free and BPA-free LWTP on the same production line.
Kar zadeva proizvodne procese, je stran trdila, da lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola oziroma bisfenola A ni mogoče proizvajati na isti proizvodni liniji.
The investigation however showed that, technically, it is possible to produce phenol-free LWTP and phenol-containing LWTP on the same production line, albeit in different batches, and that Union producers do so.
Vendar se je v preiskavi potrdilo, da je lahek termoreaktivni papir brez fenola oziroma s fenolom tehnično mogoče proizvajati na isti proizvodni liniji, čeprav v različnih šaržah, in da proizvajalci Unije to počnejo.
As to consumer perception, the party alleged that consumers are aware of the presence of bisphenol in LWTP.
V zvezi z dojemanjem potrošnikov je stran trdila, da so ti seznanjeni z vsebnostjo bisfenola v lahkem termoreaktivnem papirju.
Furthermore the Hansol group claimed that an American LWTP producer started producing phenol-free LWTP in response to customer demand and that a supermarket chain in the Union expressed concerns about the type of developer used in LWTP.
Skupina Hansol je trdila še, da je ameriški proizvajalec lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja zaradi povpraševanja stranke začel proizvajati lahek termoreaktivni papir brez fenola in da je veriga supermarketov v Uniji izrazila pomisleke glede vrste razvijalca, uporabljenega za lahek termoreaktivni papir.
However, while there may be different consumer preferences, in general all product types are interchangeable from a demand side point of view (without any changes being made by end-users) and compete between each other.
Čeprav imajo lahko potrošniki različne želje, so na splošno vse vrste izdelka s stališča povpraševanja med sabo zamenljive (ne da bi jih končni uporabniki spremenili) in konkurenčne.
The Hansol group also alleged that there is limited availability of Pergafast 201 (a phenol-free dye developer) and a significant price difference between phenol-free and phenol-containing LWTP in light of the purchase prices of two companies in the Union related to the Hansol Group.
Skupina Hansol je trdila še, da je razpoložljivost razvijalca Pergafast 201 (razvijalec barv brez fenola) omejena, cene lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola oziroma s fenolom pa se glede na nakupne cene dveh družb v Uniji, povezanih s skupino Hansol, precej razlikujejo.
Given the existence of many types of developers, the alleged limited availability of only one specific type, i.e. the Pergafast 201 (that, in any case, the Hansol Group does not seem to have used), is irrelevant, because there are other alternative sources.
Glede na to, da obstaja veliko vrst razvijalcev, je domnevno omejena razpoložljivost le ene posebne vrste, tj. razvijalca Pergafast 201 (za katerega se zdi, da ga skupina Hansol v nobenem primeru ni uporabila), nepomembna, saj obstajajo še drugi alternativni viri.
For instance, in 2015 the European Chemical Agency's Committees, namely the Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’) and the Committee for Socioeconomic Analysis (‘SEAC’), considered that then there were some 10 realistic alternatives to bisphenol A in thermal paper plus novel promising alternatives [4].
Leta 2015 sta na primer odbora Evropske agencije za kemikalije, in sicer Odbor za oceno tveganja („RAC“) in Odbor za socialno-ekonomsko analizo („SEAC“), menila, da je bilo takrat na voljo približno deset realnih in nekaj novih obetavnih alternativnih možnosti za uporabo bisfenola A za termoreaktivni papir [4].
The suppliers of chemical developers are expected to be ready for the ban on BPA mentioned in recital (10) and for the expiry of the patent on Pergafast 201 by 2019.
Pričakuje se, da bodo dobavitelji kemičnih razvijalcev do leta 2019 pripravljeni na prepoved bisfenola A, kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi 10, in iztek patenta za razvijalec Pergafast 201.
As to the alleged price difference, it is common that the product covered by an anti-dumping investigation includes various types with different price ranges.
Kar zadeva domnevno razliko v ceni, je običajno, da izdelek iz protidampinške preiskave vključuje različne vrste z različnimi cenovnimi razponi.
This price difference is however not sufficient in itself to consider the various types as different products for the purpose of defining a product subject to an anti-dumping investigation, as long as the various types share the same basic characteristics and compete with each other, which is the case here.
Vendar ta razlika v ceni sama po sebi ni dovolj, da bi se različne vrste štele za različne izdelke za namen opredelitve izdelka, ki je vključen v protidampinško preiskavo, če imajo različne vrste enake osnovne lastnosti in so med seboj konkurenčne, tako kot v tem primeru.
In any event, any element affecting prices is taken into consideration for the purpose of the price comparison.
V vsakem primeru se pri primerjavi cen upoštevajo vsi dejavniki, ki vplivajo na cene.
The Hansol group reiterated that there is a significant price difference between phenol-free and phenol containing LWTP (according to the purchase prices of its converters in the Union), which would allegedly demonstrate that they are different products.
Skupina Hansol je ponovila, da se cene lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola oziroma s fenolom (glede na nakupne cene njenih predelovalcev v Uniji) precej razlikujejo, kar naj bi domnevno dokazovalo, da gre za različna izdelka.
In this respect, the overall finding in recital (113) of the provisional Regulation that the unit sales prices of phenol-free LWTP dropped less than the unit sales prices of phenol-containing LWTP cannot be contradicted by the purchase prices of two companies in the Union related to the Hansol Group, which represent a small share of the Union consumption.
S tem v zvezi nakupne cene dveh družb v Uniji, povezanih s skupino Hansol, ki zajemata majhen delež potrošnje Unije, ne morejo izpodbijati splošne ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave 113 začasne uredbe, da so se prodajne cene na enoto lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola znižale manj kot prodajne cene na enoto lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s fenolom.
The Hansol group initially claimed that phenol-free LWTP should not be covered by the investigation on the grounds that phenol-free LWTP is neither produced nor exported from the Republic of Korea.
Skupina Hansol je prvotno trdila, da preiskava ne bi smela zajeti lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja brez fenola, ker se ta ne proizvaja v Republiki Koreji niti se ne izvaža iz nje.
In this respect, the Hansol Group's webpages show that this party has bisphenol-free thermal paper and LWTP without BPA on offer.
V zvezi s tem je s spletnega mesta skupine Hansol razvidno, da ima ta stran v ponudbi termoreaktivni papir brez fenola in lahek termoreaktivni papir brez bisfenola A.
The Hansol Group also claimed that the Commission was incorrect in defining a too broad product scope, because it will hamper future technological developments.
Skupina Hansol je trdila še, da je Komisija napačno preširoko opredelila obseg izdelka, saj bo to oviralo prihodnji tehnološki razvoj.
In particular, the party alleged that the complainants' catalogues do not show LWTP weighing less than 44 g/m2, reiterating its claim mentioned in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation that such type of LWTP should be excluded.
Stran je zlasti trdila, da v katalogih pritožnikov ni lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s težo manj kot 44 g/m2, in znova poudarila svojo trditev iz uvodne izjave 20 začasne uredbe, da bi bilo treba takšno vrsto lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja izključiti.
The above claim was not supported by any evidence.
Zgornja trditev ni bila podprta z nobenimi dokazi.
First, nothing on file shows that LWTP of less than 44 g/m2 has different physical, technical and chemical characteristics, use, consumer perception, distribution channels, manufacturing process, costs of production and quality from other LWTP or is not interchangeable.
Prvič, nič v spisu ne kaže, da so za lahek termoreaktivni papir s težo manj kot 44 g/m2 značilni drugačni fizikalne, tehnične in kemične lastnosti, uporaba, dojemanje potrošnikov, distribucijski kanali, postopek proizvodnje, stroški proizvodnji in kakovost kot za drug lahek termoreaktivni papir oziroma ni zamenljiv.
Second, there is no technical barrier that would prevent producers from producing LWTP of less than 44 g/m2.
Drugič, ni tehnične ovire, ki bi proizvajalcem preprečila proizvodnjo lahkega termoreaktivnega papirja s težo manj kot 44 g/m2.