natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A second preliminary ruling request on the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 was lodged by the UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on 28 November 2016 (Case C-612/16 C & J Clark International).
Zaradi zgoraj navedenega je Komisija z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/2257 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgodnjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo trije proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
Furthermore, following a notification from the French customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the Commission analysed MET/IT claims from three Chinese exporting producers, Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co.
Carinski organi Združenega kraljestva so Komisiji 12. julija 2016 v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki v Uniji, in ji poslali spremne dokumente.
Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co.
Belgijski carinski organi so Komisiji 13. julija 2016 v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki v Uniji, in ji poslali spremne dokumente.
Ltd
Švedski carinski organi so Komisiji 26. julija 2016 v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki v Uniji, in ji poslali spremne dokumente.
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by three exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
V teh priglasitvah, na katere se nanaša ta uredba, je bilo skupaj navedenih 246 družb s Kitajske in iz Vietnama, ki so bile dobaviteljice obutve.
On 12 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of the United Kingdom notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
Za večino teh družb, in sicer za 168 družb (navedenih v Prilogi III k tej uredbi), Komisija nima evidence, da bi v prvotni preiskavi predložile obrazec zahtevka za TGO ali IO.
On 13 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Belgium notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
Med temi družbami so bile tudi družbe, ki niso vključene v preiskavo, saj na primer nimajo sedeža na Kitajskem ali v Vietnamu, ali pa so trgovinske ali zgolj predelovalne družbe, ki v nobenem primeru niso upravičene do individualne stopnje dampinga.
On 26 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Sweden notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
Družbe iz Priloge III tudi niso mogle dokazati, da so bile povezane s katerim od kitajskih ali vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so v prvotni preiskavi predložili zahtevek za TGO/IO.
These notifications, which are the subject of this Regulation, listed a total of 246 companies as suppliers of footwear from China and Vietnam.
Vendar, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 79, Komisija priznava, da morda niso bili vsi uvozniki, ki so od navedenih trgovcev kupili obutev, seznanjeni s tem, da morajo Komisiji sporočiti imena proizvajalcev izvoznikov, od katerih so zadevni trgovci kupili obutev.
For a large number of these companies, 168 (listed in Annex III of this Regulation) the Commission has no record that these companies had submitted any MET or IT claim form in the original investigation.
V uvodni izjavi 79 je tudi podrobneje pojasnjeno, zakaj se je Komisija zato odločila, da začasno odloži preverjanje družb iz Priloge III.
Amongst these companies there were also companies that are not concerned by the investigation as they were, for instance, not located in China or Vietnam or they were trading or mere processing companies in any event not entitled to any individual dumping margin.
Od preostalih družb jih je bilo 20 že ocenjenih posamično ali kot del skupine družb, izbran iz vzorca kitajskih ali vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v okviru prvotne preiskave (navedene so v Prilogi IV k tej uredbi).
The companies listed in Annex III were also not able to demonstrate that they were related to any of the Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that had provided a MET/IT claim in the original investigation.
Ker nobena od teh družb ni prejela individualne stopnje dajatve, se za uvoz obutve teh družb uporablja dajatev v višini 16,5 % za Kitajsko oziroma v višini 10 % za Vietnam.
However, as mentioned in recital (79) below, the Commission recognises that not all importers that bought footwear from those traders may have been aware of the need to inform the Commission of the names of the exporting producers from which said traders acquired their footwear.
Sodba, navedena v uvodni izjavi 12, ni vplivala na ti stopnji.
Recital (79) also explains in more detail why the Commission, on that basis, has decided to temporarily suspend the examination of the companies listed in Annex III.
Od preostalih družb jih je bilo 31 (navedene so v Prilogi V k tej uredbi) že ocenjenih posamično ali kot del skupine družb v okviru izvrševanja sodbe iz uvodne izjave 12; in sicer v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU ali izvedbenih uredbah (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 oziroma (EU) 2016/2257.
(3 1) Out of the remaining companies, 20 were already assessed individually or as part of a company group selected in the sample of Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers in the context of the original investigation (listed in Annex IV of this Regulation).
Te ocene so vključevale tudi osem družb, ki so bile priglašene Komisiji in za katere se je po razkritju na podlagi pripomb Združenja evropske industrije športnih izdelkov („združenje FESI“) in koalicije za obutev ugotovilo, da so povezane z eno od družb ali skupin družb, ki so že bile ocenjene v eni od navedenih uredb.
As none of these companies received an individual duty rate, the duty for China of 16,5 %, or of 10 % for Vietnam, is applied to imports of footwear from these companies respectively.
Za družbe ali skupine družb, ki so bile ocenjene v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU, ni veljala ponovna uvedba protidampinške dajatve, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 10, saj so bile tem družbam dajatve že povrnjene in so lahko utemeljeno pričakovale, da se zanje ne bodo ponovno uvedle.
These rates were not affected by the judgment mentioned in recital (12).
Zahtevki za povračilo dajatev uvoznikom v Uniji v zvezi z družbami ali skupinami družb, ki so bile ocenjene v izvedbenih uredbah (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 oziroma (EU) 2016/2257, se po drugi strani ne bi smeli odobriti.
Out of the remaining companies, 31 (listed in Annex V of this Regulation) were already assessed either individually or as part of a company group in the context of the implementation of the judgment mentioned in recital (12); namely in Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU or in Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 respectively.
Ti uvozniki so namreč v drugačnem pravnem položaju kot uvozniki, ki so bili ocenjeni v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU in zlasti nimajo utemeljenih pričakovanj.
These assessments included also eight companies that were notified to the Commission and were identified following disclosure through comments received from Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) and the Footwear Coalition as being related to one of the company or company groups already assessed previously in one of the before-mentioned regulations.
Po razkritju se je na podlagi pripomb združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev za enega kitajskega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki je bil priglašen Komisiji, ugotovilo, da je ta družba v prvotni preiskavi predložila obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO, vendar ni bila vzorčena ali ocenjena v prejšnjih izvedbenih uredbah iz uvodnih izjav od 18 do 20 ter 25.
Companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU were not made subject to any re-imposition of an anti-dumping duty, as mentioned in recital (10), on the basis that the reimbursement of duties to these companies had already taken place and thus provided legitimate expectations to them that no such re-imposition would occur.
Isti strani sta identificirali še štiri druge družbe, priglašene Komisiji, ki so bile povezane s kitajskimi ali vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki in so v prvotni preiskavi predložile obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO, vendar niso bile vzorčene in v izvedbenih uredbah iz uvodnih izjav od 18 do 20 ter 25 tudi niso bile ocenjene.
The reimbursement claims of importers in the Union relating to companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 respectively, should, on the other hand, not be granted.
Skupno bi bilo treba torej oceniti zahtevek za TGO/IO petih družb (iz Priloge VI) ali njihovih povezanih družb.
This is because these importers find themselves in a different legal situation than those assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, having notably not gained legitimate expectations.
Teh ocen ni mogoče končati v časovnem okviru te izvedbene uredbe, zato bodo izvedene v naknadni izvedbeni uredbi.
Following disclosure, through comments provided by FESI and the Footwear Coalition, one Chinese exporting producer that was notified to the Commission, was identified as a company having submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation but that was not sampled, nor assessed in previous implementation exercises mentioned in recitals (18) to (20) and (25).
Zahtevke za povračilo dajatev uvoznikom v Uniji teh družb (v Prilogi VI) bi bilo zato treba začasno odložiti, dokler ne bo znan rezultat ocene zahtevkov za TGO in IO zadevnih dobaviteljev na Kitajskem in/ali v Vietnamu.
The same parties also identified four other companies notified to the Commission that were related to Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that had submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation, but were not sampled and that had also not been assessed in previous implementation exercises mentioned in recitals (18) to (20) and (25).
Po razkritju sta isti strani trdili, da je bilo šest družb iz Priloge III povezanih z družbo ali skupino družb, ki je že bila ocenjena v prejšnjih izvedbenih uredbah, in bi jih bilo treba kot take tudi identificirati.
In total there are thus five companies (listed in Annex VI) whose MET/IT claim, or that of their related companies, should be assessed.
Vendar dokazi v spisu niso potrdili te trditve, potrdili pa je niso tudi nobeni drugi dokazi.
These assessments cannot be finalised within the time frame of the current implementation exercise and will therefore be subject to a subsequent implementation exercise.
Ta trditev se zato zavrne.
The reimbursement claims of importers in the Union of these companies (listed in Annex VI) should therefore be temporarily suspended pending the outcome of the assessment of the MET/IT claims of the relevant suppliers in China and/or Vietnam.
Preostalih 19 družb so sestavljali kitajski ali vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki niso bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi in ki so predložili obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO.
Finally, following disclosure, the same parties claimed that six companies listed in Annex III were related to a company or company group already assessed in previous implementation exercises and should be identified as such.
Komisija je zato ocenila zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložile te družbe.
However, the evidence in the file did not confirm this claim, which was, in any case, also not substantiated by any further evidence.
Ta ocena je vključevala tudi dve družbi, ki sta bili priglašeni Komisiji in za kateri se je po razkritju na podlagi pripomb združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev ugotovilo, da sta povezani z eno od kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki se ocenjuje v tej uredbi.
This claim is therefore rejected.
To pomeni, da je v tej uredbi Komisija ocenila obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO družb Fujian Viscap Shoes Co.
The remaining 19 companies were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and that had submitted an MET/IT claim form.
Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co.
The Commission therefore assessed the MET and IT claims provided by these companies.
Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co.
This assessment included also two companies that were notified to the Commission and were identified following disclosure through comments received from FESI and the Footwear Coalition as being related to one Chinese exporting producer subject to the current assessment.
Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co.
Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co.
Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co, Ltd., PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co.
Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co.
Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co.
Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co.
Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co.
Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co.
Ltd in Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co.
Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co.
B. IZVAJANJE SODBE SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KITAJSKE
Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co.
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, zaradi katerih je bila razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene.
Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co.
Namen te uredbe je popraviti vidike izpodbijane uredbe, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso skladni z osnovno uredbo in so zato povzročili razglasitev ničnosti v delu, ki zadeva proizvajalce izvoznike iz uvodne izjave 37.
Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co.
Vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009, ki jih Sodišče ni razglasilo za nične, ostajajo v veljavi in so vključene v to uredbo.
Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co.
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za namen usklajenosti s sodbama Sodišča.
Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co.
Komisija je preučila, ali je TGO ali IO prevladovala za proizvajalce izvoznike iz uvodne izjave 37 („zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki“), ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO/IO za obdobje preiskave.
Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co.
Namen te analize je ugotoviti obseg, v katerem so zadevni uvozniki upravičeni do povračila plačanih protidampinških dajatev glede na protidampinške dajatve, plačane za izvoz teh dobaviteljev.
Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi TGO morala biti odobrena zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za izvoz katerih se je uporabljala protidampinška dajatev, ki so jo plačali zadevni uvozniki, bi bilo navedenemu proizvajalcu izvozniku treba priznati individualno stopnjo dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki bi ustrezal razliki med plačano dajatvijo in individualno stopnjo dajatve, kar je v primeru uvoza s Kitajske razlika med 16,5 % in dajatvijo, uvedeno za edino izvozno družbo v vzorcu, ki ji je bila odobrena TGO, za katero je dajatev znašala 9,7 %, v primeru uvoza iz Vietnama pa razlika med 10 % in individualno stopnjo dajatve, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, če obstaja.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi bilo treba IO odobriti proizvajalcu izvozniku, za katerega je bila zavrnjena TGO, bi se morala zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku odobriti individualna stopnja dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki ustreza razliki med plačano dajatvijo, tj. 16,5 % v primeru uvoza s Kitajske in 10 % v primeru uvoza iz Vietnama, in individualno dajatvijo, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, če obstaja.
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.
Nasprotno, če bi analiza zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo treba TGO in IO zavrniti, povračila protidampinških dajatev ne bi bilo mogoče odobriti.
This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as the exporting producers mentioned in recital (37) are concerned.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 12, je Sodišče izpodbijano uredbo in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični glede izvoza določene obutve določenih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, saj Komisija ni preučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih poslali ti proizvajalci izvozniki.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation and in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, which were not declared invalid by the Court, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into this Regulation.
Komisija je zato preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi določila stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za njihov izvoz.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments of the Court.
Ocena je pokazala, da predložene informacije niso dokazale, da so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki delovali v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva ali da izpolnjujejo pogoje za individualno obravnavo (za podrobno razlago glej uvodno izjavo 48 in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers mentioned in recital (37) (‘exporting producers concerned’) which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Ocena zahtevkov za TGO
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of these suppliers.
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri zahtevek za TGO.
Should the analysis reveal that MET was to be granted to the exporting producers concerned whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by the importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to that exporting producer and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid and the individual duty rate, i.e. in case of import from China, the difference between 16,5 %, and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that obtained MET, namely 9,7 %; and, in case of imports from Vietnam, the difference between 10 % and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Prvi pododstavek člena 2(7)(c) v ta namen določa, da mora zahtevek, ki ga tak proizvajalec predloži, vsebovati zadostne dokaze, kot so opredeljeni v navedeni določbi, da deluje v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva.
Should the analysis reveal that IT was to be granted to an exporting producer for which MET was rejected, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producer concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, i.e. in case of imports from China 16,5 % and in case of imports from Vietnam 10 %, and the individual duty calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
Nasprotno, instituciji Unije morata oceniti, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz prvega pododstavka člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri TGO, sodišče Unije pa mora preveriti, ali je ta presoja očitno napačna (točka 32 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 24 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
As explained in recital (12), the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers, in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by these exporting producers.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe mora biti izpolnjenih vseh pet meril iz tega člena, da se proizvajalcu izvozniku lahko odobri TGO.
The Commission has therefore examined the MET and IT claims of the exporting producers concerned in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
That assessment showed that the information provided did not demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals (48) and following).
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 1 (poslovne odločitve).
Assessment of the MET claims
Natančneje, Komisija je ugotovila, da večina zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (družbe 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in 25) ni mogla svobodno določiti količine prodaje na domačem in izvoznih trgih.
It is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da so obstajale omejitve v proizvodnji in/ali omejitev količine prodaje na določenih trgih (domačih in izvoznih trgih).
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) provides that the claim submitted by such a producer must contain sufficient evidence, as laid down in that provision, that the producer operates under market economy conditions.
Poleg tega nekateri zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki (družbe 8, 9, 10 in 15) niso predložili bistvenih in popolnih informacij (kot so dokazi o strukturi in kapitalu družbe, dokazi ali pojasnila o postopkih odločanja v družbi), ki bi dokazovali, da so svoje poslovne odločitve sprejemali v skladu s tržnimi signali brez večjega vmešavanja države.
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (računovodstvo), družbe 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 in 25 tudi niso dokazale, da imajo jasno določeno zbirko računovodskih evidenc, ki se pregledujejo neodvisno v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
On the contrary, it is for the Union institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET and it is for the Union judicature to examine whether that assessment is vitiated by a manifest error (paragraph 32 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Zlasti ocene za TGO so pokazale, da bodisi te družbe Komisiji niso predložile mnenja/poročila neodvisnega revizorja bodisi ni bila izvedena revizija njihovih računovodskih izkazov ali pa niso bile pojasnjene nekatere postavke v bilanci stanja in izkazu poslovnega izida.