natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p.
Poimenovanje blaga
1).
Obdobje
ANNEX
Letna količina (v tonah neto teže)
Order No
Pripravljeni ali konzervirani fileti skuše (Scomber scombrus, Scomber japonicus, Scomber colias)
CN code
do datuma, ki se določi v skladu s členom 2(1)(a) in (b)
Description of goods
Pripravljeni ali konzervirani fileti fregatnega trupca ali trupca (Auxis thazard, Auxis rochei)
Periods
Zelenortski otoki so z dopisom z dne 27. septembra 2016 predložili zahtevo za podaljšanje navedenega odstopanja za enake letne količine in za obdobje dveh let od 1. januarja 2017 do 31. decembra 2018, dokler ne začne veljati nov Sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu (v nadaljnjem besedilu: SGP) med Unijo in Zahodno Afriko, ki je bil parafiran 30. junija 2014.
Annual quantity (in tonnes net weight)
Ta novi sporazum bo na podlagi pravil o kumulaciji ribiški predelovalni industriji Zelenortskih otokov omogočal izpolnjevanje pravil o preferencialnem poreklu z uporabo rib s poreklom iz drugih zahodnoafriških držav.
Prepared or preserved fillets of mackerel (Scomber scombrus, Scomber japonicus, Scomber colias)
Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 439/2011 je prenehala veljati 31. decembra 2016, temeljila pa je na členu 89 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2454/93 o določbah za izvajanje carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, ki je prenehala veljati 1. maja 2016.
to the date determined in accordance with Article 2(1)(a) and (b)
Odstopanje je primerno podaljšati z novim izvedbenim aktom, sprejetim v skladu s členom 64(6) carinskega zakonika Unije.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/969
imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončnih izravnalnih dajatev na uvoz nekaterih vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov iz železa, nelegiranega jekla ali drugega legiranega jekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in spremembi Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2017/649 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov iz železa, nelegiranega jekla ali drugega legiranega jekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’) [1], and in particular Article 15 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) 2016/1037 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2016 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske unije („osnovna uredba“) [1], in zlasti člena 15 Uredbe,
On 13 May 2016, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti- subsidy investigation with regard to imports into the Union of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’).
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je 13. maja 2016 začela protisubvencijsko preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov iz železa, nelegiranega jekla ali drugega legiranega jekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“ ali „zadevna država“) v Unijo.
The initiation was based on Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community [2].
Preiskavo je začela na podlagi člena 10 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 597/2009 z dne 11. junija 2009 o zaščiti proti subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [2].
It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘Notice of Initiation’) [3].
Obvestilo o začetku je objavila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3] („obvestilo o začetku“).
The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 31 March 2016 by the European Steel Association (‘Eurofer’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 90 % of the total Union production of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel (‘HRF’).
Komisija je preiskavo začela na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 31. marca 2016 v imenu proizvajalcev Unije, ki predstavljajo več kot 90 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov iz železa, nelegiranega jekla ali drugega legiranega jekla („vroče valjani ploščati izdelki“) v Uniji, vložilo Združenje evropskih jeklarjev („Eurofer“ ali „pritožnik“).
The complaint contained evidence of subsidisation and of a resulting threat of injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.
Pritožba je vsebovala dokaze o subvencioniranju in posledični grožnji škode, ki so zadostovali za začetek preiskave.
Prior to the initiation of the anti-subsidy investigation, the Commission notified the Government of China (‘GOC’) [4] that it had received a properly documented complaint, and invited the GOC for consultations in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je pred začetkom protisubvencijske preiskave v skladu s členom 10(7) osnovne uredbe uradno obvestila kitajsko vlado [4], da je prejela pravilno dokumentirano pritožbo, in jo povabila na posvetovanje.
During the consultations, due note was taken of the comments submitted by the GOC.
Komisija je 13. februarja 2016 [5], tj. nekaj mesecev pred začetkom sedanje preiskave, začela protidampinško preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom enakega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK („vzporedna protidampinška preiskava“).
However, no mutually agreed solution could be reached.
Kmalu po začetku sedanje preiskave je 7. julija 2016 začela [6] tudi protidampinško preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom enakega izdelka s poreklom iz Brazilije, Irana, Rusije, Srbije in Ukrajine.
A few months before the initiation of the present investigation, the Commission initiated, on 13 February 2016 [5], an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in the PRC (‘the parallel anti-dumping investigation’).
Dne 5. aprila 2017 je uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz enakega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK [7] („protidampinška uredba“).
Shortly after the initiation of the present investigation, the Commission also initiated on 7 July 2016 [6], an anti-dumping investigation on imports of the same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.
Analizi škode, vzročne zveze in interesa Unije, izvedeni v tej protisubvencijski in vzporedni protidampinški preiskavi, sta podobni, saj je opredelitev industrije Unije enaka, reprezentativni proizvajalci Unije in obdobje preiskave pa isti v obeh preiskavah.
On 5 April 2017 the Commission imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the same product originating in the PRC [7] (‘the anti-dumping Regulation’).
Da bi se upoštevali vsi dejanski elementi, predloženi v sedanji preiskavi, sta bili analizi posodobljeni in dopolnjeni.
The injury, causation and Union interest analyses performed in the present anti-subsidy and the parallel anti-dumping investigation are similar, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations.
Pripombe po začetka postopka
They have been up-dated and complemented in order to take account of all factual elements brought forward in the present investigation.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da se zaradi protidampinške pritožbe zaradi enakega izdelka iz petih držav na podlagi obstoja znatne škode, ki je bila vložena manj kot dva meseca od vložitve te pritožbe na podlagi grožnje škode, porajajo resni pomisleki o tem, ali bi se morala ta protisubvencijska preiskava sploh začeti.
Comments following initiation
Komisija je opozorila, da sta protisubvencijska zadeva v zvezi z LRK in protidampinška zadeva v zvezi z enakim izdelkom iz drugih petih držav ločeni preiskavi, ki ju je treba presojati ločeno.
The GOC argued that the filing of an anti-dumping complaint against the same product from five countries on the basis of the existence of material injury within less than two months of the filing of the present complaint based on a threat of injury raises serious questions as to whether the present anti-subsidy investigation should have been initiated.
Zadevi imata različni obdobji preiskave, ki se le delno prekrivata (druga polovica leta 2015).
The Commission noted that the anti-subsidy case against the PRC and the anti-dumping case against the same product from five other countries are two separate investigations that must be assessed on their own merits.
Protisubvencijska pritožba je bila vložena zaradi grožnje škode industriji Unije, protidampinška pritožba, ki je bila vložena pozneje, pa zaradi povzročitve škode industriji Unije.
First, the two cases have different investigation periods, which only partially overlap (the second half of 2015).
Komisija je v zvezi s tem spomnila, da se damping in škoda določita na podlagi obdobja preiskave, ki je za obe zadevi opredeljeno v skladu z zadevnimi pravnimi določbami in navedeno v obvestilu o začetku postopka.
Second, the anti-subsidy complaint was based on a threat of injury to the Union industry whereas the subsequent anti-dumping complaint was based on the existence of injury to the Union industry.
Brez poseganja v rezultate preiskave, ki poteka v zvezi z drugimi petimi državami, je iz uvodnih izjav od (549) do (551) tudi razvidno, da dokazi, ki so bili pridobljeni med preiskavo, niso ovrgli zadostnih dokazov, ki so bili na voljo ob začetku preiskave.
In this respect, the Commission recalled that the determination of dumping and injury is made on the basis of an investigation period defined in line with the relevant legal provisions and announced in the Notice of Initiation for each of the two cases.
Zato je to trditev zavrnila kot neutemeljeno.
Moreover, without prejudice to the results of the ongoing anti-dumping investigation concerning the other five countries, recitals (549) to (551) show that the sufficient evidence available at the time of initiation has not been invalidated by the evidence found during the investigation.
Kitajska vlada je trdila tudi, da bi bilo treba preiskavo končati, ker pritožba ni zadostila zahtevam glede dokazovanja iz člena 11(2) in (3) Sporazuma STO o subvencijah in izravnalnih ukrepih ter člena 10(2) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission thus rejected this claim as unfounded.
Po mnenju kitajske vlade ni bilo zadostnih dokazov o obstoju subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, škode in vzročne povezave med subvencioniranim uvozom in škodo.
The GOC also claimed that the investigation should be terminated because the complaint did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and of Article 10(2) of the basic Regulation.
Dokazi, predloženi v pritožbi, so vsebovali informacije, ki so bile pritožniku razumno na voljo.
According to the GOC, there was insufficient evidence of countervailable subsidies, injury and a causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury.
V začetni fazi so tudi zadostovali za dokaz, da se lahko proti domnevnim subvencijam uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi glede na njihov obstoj, višino in naravo.
The evidence submitted in the complaint constituted the information reasonably available to the complainant.
Pritožba je vsebovala tudi zadostne dokaze o obstoju grožnje škode industriji Unije, ki je posledica subvencioniranega uvoza.
It was also sufficient to show, at initiation stage, that the alleged subsidies were countervailable in terms of their existence, amount and nature.
Pritožba obsega 166 strani, na katerih so opisani dokazi iz 117 prilog.
The complaint also contained sufficient evidence that there was a threat of injury to the Union industry, which was caused by the subsidised imports.
Kolikor je kitajska vlada opozorila na morebitne pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z natančnostjo in ustreznostjo pritožbe, jih je Komisija med preiskavo proučila, vendar ni našla razlogov za izključitev katere od trditev prima facie o obstoju in obsegu subvencioniranja ob začetku preiskave.
The complaint consists of 166 pages, in which it describes the evidence contained in the 117 annexes.
Kitajska vlada je po razkritju ponovila svojo trditev, pri tem pa ni predložila nikakršnih dodatnih razlogov, kar bi to lahko utemeljilo.
Insofar as the GOC pointed to any deficiencies with respect to the accuracy and adequacy of the complaint, the Commission examined these during the investigation, but found no reason to exclude any of the prima facie claims about the existence and extent of subsidisation when initiating the investigation.
Komisija je zato ohranila svoje stališče, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi zgoraj.
After disclosure, the GOC repeated its claim, but provided no additional grounds to substantiate it.
Obdobje preiskave in obravnavano obdobje
Thus, the Commission maintained its position as described in the recital above.
Preiskava subvencioniranja in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2015 do 31. decembra 2015 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
Investigation period and period considered
Proučevanje gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajelo obdobje od 1. januarja 2012 do 31. decembra 2015 („obravnavano obdobje“) in ustrezni razvoj dogodkov po OP.
The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Zainteresirane strani
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2015 (‘the period considered’) as well as relevant post IP developments.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo, če želijo sodelovati v preiskavi.
Interested parties
Poleg tega je o začetku preiskave posebej obvestila pritožnika, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, znane proizvajalce izvoznike ter kitajsko vlado, znane uvoznike, dobavitelje in uporabnike, trgovce in združenja, za katera je znano, da jih to zadeva, ter jih povabila k sodelovanju.
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the GOC, the known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Vzorčenje
Sampling
Proizvajalci Unije
Union producers
V skladu s členom 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe ga je izbrala na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega proizvodnje in prodaje, ki bi ga bilo razumno mogoče preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers.
Vzorec je predstavljal tudi široko geografsko razpršenost.
In accordance with Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample on the basis of the highest representative production and sales volumes, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe glede začasnega vzorca, vendar ni prejela nobenih pripomb.
The sample also represented a broad geographical spread.
Uvozniki
It accounted for over 45 % of Union production.
Čeprav se je Komisija obrnila nanj, da bi pridobila ustrezne informacije, je poslal le nepopolno izpolnjen vprašalnik.
Importers
Proizvajalci izvozniki
The Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation in order to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec, je vse proizvajalce izvoznike iz LRK pozvala, naj predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o začetku.
One unrelated importer came forward and an importer questionnaire was sent to this importer.
Poleg tega je od organov LRK zahtevala, naj navedejo morebitne druge proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi jih zanimalo sodelovanje v preiskavi, in/ali vzpostavijo stik z njimi.
However, even though the Commission contacted him in an effort to gather relevant information, the unrelated importer only provided an incomplete questionnaire reply.
Zahtevane informacije je navedlo in se z vključitvijo v vzorec strinjalo devet proizvajalcev izvoznikov/skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz zadevne države.
Exporting producers
Komisija je v skladu s členom 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza v Unijo, ki bi ga bilo razumno mogoče preiskati v razpoložljivem času, izbrala vzorec, v katerem so naslednje štiri skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov:
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.
Benxi Iron & Steel Group, Kitajska;
In addition, the Commission requested the authorities of the PRC to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
Hesteel Group, Kitajska;
Nine exporting producers / group(s) of exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Jiangsu Shagang Group, Kitajska;
In accordance with Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected the following sample of four groups of exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available:
Shougang Group, Kitajska.
Benxi Iron & Steel Group, China
Vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov so predstavljale 68 % celotnega uvoza zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.
Hesteel Group, China
V skladu s členom 27(2) osnovne uredbe so bila z vsemi znanimi zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki in kitajsko vlado opravljena posvetovanja o izbiri vzorca.
Jiangsu Shagang Group, China
Pripombe glede predlaganega vzorca so predložili pritožnik in dva proizvajalca izvoznika, od katerih je bil eden vključen v vzorec, eden pa ne.
Shougang Group, China.
Pritožnik je trdil, da predlagani vzorec ne ponazarja kitajske industrije vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov, ki se bo preiskovala.
The sampled groups of exporting producers represented 68 % of the total imports of the product concerned to the Union.
Natančneje, trdil je, da Komisija ne bi smela vzorčiti le na podlagi obsega izvoza, ampak tudi na podlagi vključitve vseh subvencij iz pritožbe.
In accordance with Article 27(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the GOC, were consulted on the selection of the sample.
Zato je menil, da dve vzorčeni družbi nista bili reprezentativni prejemnici subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi.
Comments on the proposed sample were received from the complainant and two exporting producers, one included, one not included in the sample.
Komisija je opozorila, da je merilo, na podlagi katerega je izbrala vzorec, člen 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe.
The complainant argued that the proposed sample does not reflect the Chinese HRF industry to be investigated.
V skladu z navedeno določbo je vzorec izbrala na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza v Unijo.
More specifically, the complainant claimed that the Commission should base its sample not only on the volume of the exports, but also on the inclusion of the full range of subsidies set out in the complaint.
Vzorec zaradi dejstva, da posamezna družba morda ni upravičena do določene vrste domnevne subvencije, ni nereprezentativen, saj je njegov namen, da predstavlja celotno industrijo vroče valjanih ploščatih izdelkov v LRK, kar zadeva upravičenost do vseh vrst domnevnih subvencij.
In this respect, the complainant considered that two of the sampled companies were not representative recipients of countervailable subsidies.
Kot je Komisija analizirala v obvestilu k spisu, ki je na voljo v nezaupnem spisu, so štiri vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov reprezentativne, kar zadeva upravičenost do domnevnih subvencij, navedenih v pritožbi.
The Commission observed that the criterion it used for selecting the sample is Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je po njenem mnenju izbrani vzorec ustrezna podlaga za proučitev obstoja in obsega domnevnega subvencioniranja ter skladen s členom 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe.
According to that provision, the Commission bases the selection on the largest representative volume exported to the Union.
Po razkritju je pritožnik vztrajal, da bi morala Komisija za izbiro vzorca uporabiti člen 27(1)(a) namesto člena 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe, saj bi to omogočilo boljše odražanje vzpostavljenih subvencijskih programov.
The fact that an individual company might not be eligible for a specific type of an alleged subsidy does not render the sample non-representative, as the purpose of the sample is to represent the overall HRF industry in the PRC with regard to eligibility for all types of alleged subsidies.
Kot je pojasnjeno v prejšnji uvodni izjavi, je Komisija menila, da štiri vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov niso reprezentativne le glede obsega, temveč tudi glede njihove upravičenosti do domnevnih subvencij iz pritožbe ter subvencijskih praks, ki so se začele preiskovati z obvestilom o začetku.
The four sampled groups of exporting producers are representative, in terms of eligibility for the subsidies alleged in the complaint, as the Commission has analysed in a note to the file available in the non-confidential file.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
Hence, the Commission considered that the selected sample represented a proper basis to examine the existence and the extent of the alleged subsidisation, and complies with Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Prvega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki je bil vzorčen, so zanimali razlogi za odstopanje od vzorca, predlaganega v vzporedni protidampinški preiskavi.
After disclosure, the complainant insisted that the Commission should have used Article 27(1)(a) instead of Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation for selecting the sample, as this would have allowed to better reflect the subsidy programmes in place.
Komisija je spomnila, da sta protidampinška in protisubvencijska preiskava ločeni preiskavi, ki imata različen namen.
As explained in the previous recital, the Commission considered that the four sampled groups of exporting producers were representative not only in terms of volume, but also in terms of their eligibility for the subsidies alleged in the complaint as well as the subsidy practices investigated as per the Notice of Initiation.
V protidampinški preiskavi Komisija ugotavlja, ali obstaja damping ali ne (tj. objektivna cenovna diskriminacija), kar je binarno vprašanje.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
Ugotovitev dampinga se lahko iz vzorca ekstrapolira na vse druge družbe.
The first exporting producer, which was sampled, enquired about the reasons for deviating from the sample proposed for the parallel anti-dumping investigation.
V protisubvencijski preiskavi Komisija določi znesek subvencioniranja na izvoženo enoto zadevnega izdelka.
The Commission recalled that the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investigations constitute two separate investigations having a different purpose.
Izravnalni ukrepi se lahko uvedejo le proti subvencijam, ki se ugotovijo pri vzorčenih družbah.