natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is necessary to clarify that, for the purpose of the on-the-spot checks referred to in Article 50(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 [3], the amounts of advanced and interim payments should be counted towards the 5 % of minimum control rate for on-the-spot checks.
Treba je pojasniti, da bi se za namene pregledov na kraju samem iz člena 50(1) Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 809/2014 [3] zneski predplačil in vmesnih plačil morali prišteti k 5 % najmanjše stopnje kontrole za preglede na kraju samem.
It is therefore appropriate to amend the second subparagraph of Article 50(1) of that Regulation.
Zato je primerno, da se spremeni drugi pododstavek člena 50(1) navedene uredbe.
The Committee for Direct Payments and the Rural Development Committee have not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by the Chair,
Upravljalni odbor za neposredna plačila in Odbor za razvoj podeželja nista dala mnenja v roku, ki ga je določil predsednik –
Amendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014
Sprememba Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 809/2014
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 is amended as follows:
Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 809/2014 se spremeni:
the following Article 33a is inserted:
Vstavi se naslednji člen 33a:
Additional control rate for on-the-spot checks to follow-up the beneficiaries referred to in Article 19a(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014
Dodatna stopnja kontrole za preglede na kraju samem z namenom spremljanja upravičencev iz člena 19a(2) Delegirane uredbe (EU) št. 640/2014
The beneficiaries who were subject to a reduced administrative penalty in accordance with Article 19a(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 for an area-related aid scheme or support measure following an over-declaration identified in the course of an on-the-spot check shall be subject to a follow-up on-the-spot check for that given aid scheme or support measure in the following claim year.
Upravičenci, ki so bili predmet zmanjšane upravne kazni v skladu s členom 19a(2) Delegirane uredbe (EU) št. 640/2014 za shemo pomoči ali ukrep podpore na površino na podlagi čezmerne prijave, ugotovljene pri pregledu na kraju samem, so v naslednjem letu zahtevkov predmet nadaljnjega pregleda na kraju samem za navedeno zadevno shemo pomoči ali ukrep podpore.
The follow-up on-the-spot check referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be necessary where the over-declaration identified has led to an up-date of the reference parcels concerned in the identification system for agricultural parcels as referred to in Article 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 in the year of the finding.’;
Nadaljnji pregled na kraju samem iz odstavka 1 ni potreben, če je ugotovljena čezmerna prijava vodila do posodobitve zadevnih referenčnih parcel v identifikacijskem sistemu za kmetijske parcele iz člena 5 Delegirane uredbe (EU) št. 640/2014 v letu ugotovitve.“
the second subparagraph of Article 50(1) is replaced by the following:
Drugi pododstavek člena 50(1) se nadomesti z naslednjim:
‘Where an operation subject to on-the-spot check has received advance or interim payments, those payments shall be counted towards the expenditure covered by on-the-spot checks as referred to in the first subparagraph.’.
„Če je bilo za operacijo, ki je predmet pregleda na kraju samem, izplačano predplačilo ali vmesno plačilo, se navedena plačila prištevajo v izdatke, zajete s pregledi na kraju samem, kot je navedeno v prvem pododstavku.“
It shall apply to aid applications, applications for support and payment claims relating to claim years or premium periods starting as from 1 January 2016.
Uporablja se za vloge za pomoč, vloge za podporo ali zahtevke za plačilo, ki se nanašajo na leta zahtevkov ali premijska obdobja od 1. januarja 2016.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ L 181, 20.6.2014, p. 48).
Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) št. 640/2014 z dne 11. marca 2014 o dopolnitvi Uredbe (EU) št. 1306/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede integriranega administrativnega in kontrolnega sistema, pogojev za zavrnitev ali ukinitev plačil in za upravne kazni, ki se uporabljajo za neposredna plačila, podporo za razvoj podeželja in navzkrižno skladnost (UL L 181, 20.6.2014, str. 48).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1395
of 18 August 2016
z dne 18. avgusta 2016
reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co.
o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo družbe Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd., Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co.
Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co.
Ltd., Win Profile Industries Ltd, in izvajanju sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14
Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co.
EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE
Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije („PDEU“) in zlasti člena 266 Pogodbe,
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
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 („osnovna uredba“), ter zlasti člena 9 in člena 14 Uredbe,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), and in particular to Article 266 thereof,
ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 9 and 14 thereof,
A. POSTOPEK
Whereas:
Komisija je 23. marca 2006 sprejela Uredbo (ES) št. 553/2006 o uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja („obutev“) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“) in Vietnama („začasna uredba“).
A. PROCEDURE
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 je Svet uvedel dokončne protidampinške dajatve v višini od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama in Ljudske republike Kitajske za dve leti („Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006“ ali „izpodbijana uredba“).
On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 388/2008 je Svet dokončne protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske razširil na uvoz izdelkov, poslanih iz Posebne upravne regije Macao, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirani kot izdelki s poreklom iz Posebne upravne regije Macao ali ne.
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for 2 years (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov, ki se je začel 3. oktobra 2008, je Svet z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 protidampinške ukrepe podaljšal za 15 mesecev, tj. do 31. marca 2011, ko so ukrepi prenehali veljati („Uredba (EU) št. 1294/2009“).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with upper leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
By judgements of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, the General Court rejected those challenges.
2010, str.
The applicants appealed those judgements.
II-747, jih je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann et al and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Vložniki so se na ti sodbi pritožili.
Ltd (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
V sodbah z dne 2. februarja 2012 v zadevi C-249/10 P Brosmann in drugi ter z dne 15. novembra 2012 v zadevi C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Ltd („sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang“) je Sodišče Evropske unije ti sodbi razveljavilo.
The Court of Justice then gave judgement itself in the matter.
Menilo je, da je Splošno sodišče napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je navedlo, da Komisija ni bila zavezana proučiti zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“), ki so temeljili na členu 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe in so jih predložili trgovci, ki niso zajeti z vzorcem (točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P ter točki 29 in 32 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
It held: […] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation.
Sodišče je nato razsodilo.
It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation.
Zato je razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v tistem delu, ki se nanaša na zadevne vložnike.
It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET.
Komisija je oktobra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, sporočila, da je sklenila obnoviti protidampinški postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in proučiti, ali so za vložnike prevladovali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva za obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005, ter je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo.
As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate (paragraph 42 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Svet je marca 2014 z Izvedbenim sklepom Sveta št. 2014/149/EU zavrnil predlog Komisije za sprejetje Izvedbene uredbe Sveta o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na določeno obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Ltd, postopke v zvezi s temi proizvajalci pa je ustavil.
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so jim pristojni nacionalni organi povrnili ustrezne carine na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2913/1992 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli legitimna pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, zlasti člena 221, ki se uporablja za pobiranje dajatev.
In March 2014, the Council, by Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V.
Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
(„Timberland“) („zadevni uvozniki“), so izpodbijali protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz nekatere obutve s Kitajske in Vietnama, pri čemer so se pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodišči sklicevali na sodno prakso iz uvodnih izjav (5) do (7), ta pa so zadevo predložila Sodišču v predhodno odločanje.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Sodišče je v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, ker Evropska komisija ni proučila zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo („IO“), ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni („sodbi“), kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami, določenimi v členu 2(7)(b) in členu 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Sodišče je v zvezi s tretjo zadevo C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, 11. aprila 2016 odločilo, da se zadeva izbriše iz registra na zahtevo nacionalnega predložitvenega sodišča.
Three importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe B.V.
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
(‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals 5 to 7 before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Če je akt, ki sta ga instituciji sprejeli v okviru upravnega postopka, kot je protidampinški postopek, razglašen za ničnega, se v skladu s sodbo Sodišča nični akt zamenja z novim aktom, v katerem je odpravljena nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče.
In the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 2(7)(b) and Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, nadaljuje v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost.
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
To pomeni zlasti, da v primeru, ko je za ničnega razglašen akt, ki zaključuje upravni postopek, razglasitev ničnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, kot je začetek protidampinškega postopka.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
V primeru, ko je za nično razglašena uredba o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, to pomeni, da po razglasitvi ničnosti protidampinški postopek še vedno ni zaključen, saj je bil akt, ki je zaključil protidampinški postopek, odstranjen iz pravnega reda Unije, razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
Razen tega, da instituciji nista proučili zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, vse druge ugotovitve iz uredb Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku postopka.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
Zato se je Komisija odločila, da bo sedanji protidampinški postopek obnovila v skladu s sodbo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in proučila, ali so za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike prevladali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva v obdobju med 1. aprilom 2004 in 31. marcem 2005, tj. obdobju preiskave, ki je privedla do uvedbe dokončnih dajatev, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah (1) in (2) („prvotna preiskava“).
In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Komisija je v primerih, kjer je bilo to potrebno, prav tako proučila, ali so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki izpolnjevali pogoje za IO v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 765/2012 („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“).
Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
V prvi fazi je Komisija za uvoz družb Clark in Puma iz LRK proučila vse zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložili nevzorčeni zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki v okviru prvotne preiskave.
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
Kar zadeva uvoz družbe Timberland iz LRK, sta bila v zadevi C-571/14 opredeljena dva dobavitelja iz LRK.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period in the investigation that led to the imposition of definitive duties mentioned in recitals 1 and 2 (‘the original investigation’).
Eden teh dobaviteljev, Zhongshan Pou Yuen, je bil v prvotni preiskavi vključen v vzorec, zato v zvezi s tem dobaviteljem v prvotni preiskavi ni prišlo do nezakonitosti.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of the basic Regulation in its form prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Drugi dobavitelj, General Shoes Limited, je bil napačno opredeljen kot kitajski dobavitelj, čeprav je bila družba ustanovljena v Vietnamu.
Regarding imports of Timberland from PRC, there were two suppliers in the PRC identified in the case C-571/14.
Za uvoz družb Puma, Clark in Timberland iz Vietnama Komisija trenutno prav tako proučuje zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložili nevzorčeni zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki v okviru prvotne preiskave.
One of those suppliers, Zhongshan Pou Yuen, was sampled in the original investigation and therefore no illegality occurred in the original investigation regarding this supplier.
Ta preiskava še poteka.
The second supplier, General Shoes Limited, was wrongly identified as a Chinese supplier whereas the company was established in Vietnam.
B. IZVRŠEVANJE SODB SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ LRK
As mentioned in recital 150 below, this was later contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do tega, da je bila razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih Sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene.
For imports of Puma, Clark and Timberland from Vietnam, the Commission is currently also carrying out an assessment of MET and IT claims provided by the relevant non-sampled exporting producers that submitted such claims in the original investigation.
Namen sedanje uredbe je popraviti vidike izpodbijane uredbe, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso v skladu z osnovno uredbo, in ki so zato privedli do razglasitve ničnosti v delu, ki zadeva nekatere proizvajalce izvoznike iz LRK.
This investigation is still ongoing.
Vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe, ki jih Sodišče ni razglasilo za nične, ostajajo v veljavi in so vključene v sedanjo uredbo.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM THE PRC
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za namene usklajenosti s sodbama.
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi TGO morala biti odobrena kitajskemu proizvajalcu izvozniku, za izvoz katerega se je uporabljala protidampinška dajatev, plačana s strani enega od dveh zadevnih uvoznikov, bi bilo povračilo dajatve omejeno na znesek, ki bi ustrezal razliki med plačano dajatvijo, tj. 16,5 %, in dajatvijo, uvedeno za edino vzorčeno izvozno družbo, kateri je bila odobrena TGO, tj. družbo Golden Step, za katero je dajatev znašala 9,7 %.