natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Interes Unije
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
En uvoznik je trdil, da Komisija ni proučila, ali bi bila uvedba protidampinških dajatev v interesu Unije ter trdil, da bi bili ukrepi v nasprotju z interesom Unije, saj (i) so ukrepi že imeli želeni učinek, ko so bili prvič uvedeni; (ii) ukrepi ne bi prinesli nobene dodatne koristi za industrijo v Uniji; (iii) ukrepi ne bi vplivali na proizvajalce izvoznike in (iv) ukrepi bi pomenili pomemben strošek za uvoznike v Uniji.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission 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/IT (see above recital 31).
V obravnavanem primeru gre le za zahtevke za TGO/IO, saj je to edina točka, na kateri je bila storjena pravna napaka, ugotovljena s strani sodišč Unije.
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Glede interesa Unije še vedno velja ocena iz prvotne uredbe.
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
Hkrati je ta ukrep upravičen z namenom zaščite finančnega interesa Unije.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
Očitne napake pri oceni zahtevkov za TGO/IO
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Ocena TGO
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
FESI in Puma sta izpodbijala presojo Komisije v zvezi z zahtevki za TGO njihovih kitajskih dobaviteljev in trdila, da so jih zavrnili predvsem na podlagi odsotnosti celovitih podatkov.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
V zvezi z merilom 1 sta ti strani trdili, da Komisija, poleg tega, da si na noben način ni prizadevala pridobiti manjkajočih podatkov, tudi ni določila, s katerimi podatki bi bilo treba dokazati, da pri poslovnih odločitvah zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni bilo nobenega večjega vmešavanja države.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument has to be rebutted.
V zvezi z merilom 3, ki se sklicuje na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi T-586/14 Xinyi OV proti Komisiji, sta ti strani trdili, da davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi niso kazali na morebitno izkrivljanje ali netržno ekonomsko vedenje.
Regarding the de facto application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, this does not automatically also require the application of Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi tega sta strani trdili, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri uporabi člena 2(7) (c) osnovne uredbe in prav tako ni ustrezno obrazložila zavrnitve zahtev za TGO proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
This is only required in cases where the Commission were to reject information that had been provided by the interested party.
Glede manjkajočih podatkov v zvezi z merilom 1 se sklicuje na (135), ki navaja, da nobena določba osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahteva, da izvoznim družbam, ki zahtevajo TGO, omogoči dopolnitev manjkajočih stvarnih informacij in da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu izvozniku, ki želi zahtevati TGO.
In the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned and based its assessment on this information.
V zvezi z merilom 3 je pojasnjeno, da davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi (če obstajajo) niso bili upoštevani kot razlog za zavrnitev TGO.
That is not use of facts available.
ocena IO
Rather, the Commission has not rejected any information.
Isti zgoraj navedeni strani sta trdili, s sklicevanjem na merilo 2, da Komisija ni dokazala, da izvozne cene niso bile svobodno določene in da je bilo na strani Komisije, da ugotovi, ali in kako je na izvozne cene vplivalo vmešavanje države.
Union interest
Poleg tega se je trdilo, da je ugotovitev, da izvozne cene niso bile določene svobodno, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami prvotne preiskave, povezane s prodajo OEM, kjer je bilo ugotovljeno, da so uvozniki, kot je Puma, opravljali lastne R&R in iskanje surovin, ko so kupovali od kitajskih dobaviteljev.
One importer claimed that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Na podlagi tega se je trdilo, da imata Puma in Timberland pomemben nadzor nad proizvodnim procesom in specifikacijami ter da zato ni bilo možnosti vmešavanja države.
The present case only concerns the MET/IT requests, because this is the only point on which a legal error has been identified by the Union Courts.
Kot je navedeno v zgornji uvodni izjavi (42), je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi odobritev IO.
For Union interest, the assessment in the initial regulation remains fully valid.
Kot je tudi pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (47), proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni uspelo dokazati, da so bile poslovne odločitve sprejete brez vmešavanja države.
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Omenjeno je tudi, da se merilo 2 ne nanaša le na izvozne cene, ampak na splošno na izvozno prodajo, vključno z izvoznimi cenami in količinami ter drugimi pogoji prodaje, ki bi morali biti določeni svobodno, brez vmešavanja države.
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
V podporo trditvi, da so bile izvozne cene svobodno določene, so se zadevne zainteresirane strani sklicevale na uvodno izjavo 269 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 553/2006 (začasna uredba).
MET assessment
Vendar pa se ta uvodna izjava nanaša na cene pri nadaljnji prodaji uvoznikov v Uniji in zato ne more biti obravnavana kot primerna osnova za vzpostavitev zanesljivosti izvoznih cen s strani proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
FESI and Puma contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of their Chinese suppliers and alleged that they were mainly rejected based on the absence of complete information.
Prav tako se sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo (132) začasne uredbe in uvodno izjavo (135) Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 (izpodbijana uredba) nanaša na prilagoditve, narejene na normalno vrednost v primerjavi z izvozno ceno in ne dovoljuje kakršnih koli zaključkov o tem, ali je bila izvozna prodaja kitajskih podjetij določena svobodno.
Regarding criterion 1, these parties argued that the Commission, apart from making no effort to obtain the missing information did also not specify which information would have been necessary to show that there was no significant State interference in the business decisions of the exporting producers concerned.
Poleg tega sta ti strani trdili, da Komisija prav tako ni pojasnila, kako je prišla do zaključkov, da bi obstajalo tveganje izogibanja protidampinškemu ukrepu, če bi bila proizvajalcem izvoznikom odobrena individualna stopnja dajatve, ki pa bi bila osnovni namen merila za IO.
Regarding criterion 3, referring the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, these parties argued that tax incentives or preferential tax regimes were not indicative for any distortion or non-market economy behaviour.
Kar zadeva tveganje izogibanja, je to le eno merilo od petih, naštetih v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe pred njeno spremembo.
On this basis, the parties argued that the Commission made a manifest error in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and has also not provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the exporting producers' MET requests.
V skladu s tem členom bi moralo biti dokazano, da proizvajalec izvoznik izpolnjuje vseh 5 meril.
With regard to the missing information concerning criterion 1, reference is made to (135) which outlines that there is nothing in the basic Regulation that requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET the possibility to complete lacking factual information and that the burden of proof lies in fact with the exporting producer who wishes to claim MET.
Neizpolnjevanje enega ali več meril zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO brez proučevanja, ali so druga merila izpolnjena.
Concerning criterion 3, it is clarified that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET.
Dobavitelj podjetja Timberland
IT assessment
FESI je ugovarjal trditvi iz zgornje uvodne izjave (19), po kateri je bil eden izmed dobaviteljev podjetja Timberland, General Shoes Limited, pred nacionalnim sodiščem napačno opredeljen kot kitajski dobavitelj, čeprav je bila družba ustanovljena v Vietnamu.
The same above parties argued, referring to criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was up to the Commission to determine whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
FESI je trdil, da bi morala Komisija zahtevati dodatna pojasnila in navedel, da je bilo podjetje zlahka prepoznano kot kitajsko podjetje.
Moreover, it was argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to OEM sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from the Chinese suppliers.
Trdil je, da se je podjetje sicer res pojavljalo z različnima imenoma na obrazcu za vzorčenje in zahtevku za TGO, predloženem v prvotni preiskavi (tj. kot General Footwear Ltd), vendar je drugačno ime podjetja v prijavi podjetja Timberland pred nacionalnim sodiščem (tj. General Shoes Ltd) najverjetneje le napaka pri prevodu.
On this basis, it was claimed that Puma and Timberland had significant control over the production process and specifications and that there was therefore no possibility of State interference.
Potemtakem bi morali biti zahtevki za TGO/IO kitajskega podjetja General Footwear Ltd prav tako ocenjeni.
As already mentioned in recital 42 above the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT.
General Footwear Ltd je del skupine podjetij s povezanimi družbami na Kitajskem in v Vietnamu.
As also explained above in recital 47 the exporting producers failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made without State interference.
Oba, proizvajalec v Vietnamu in drugi iz Kitajske, sta v prvotni preiskavi predložila zahtevke za TGO/IO.
It is also noted that criterion 2 is not referring solely to export prices, but in general to export sales including export prices and quantities and other conditions and terms of sales that should be determined freely without State interference.
V zahtevku za TGO/IO kitajskega podjetja, je bilo njegovo ime stalno navajano kot „General Footwear Ltd“ z naslovom na Kitajskem.
In support of their argument that export prices were freely determined the interested parties concerned referred to recital 269 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 (provisional Regulation).
Proizvajalec v Vietnamu je naveden kot „General Shoes Ltd“.
However, this recital addressed the resale prices of the importers in the Union and cannot therefore be considered as an appropriate basis to establish the reliability of the export prices by the exporting producers.
Zadevni zahtevek za TGO/IO je nejasen glede tega, ali je obravnavano podjetje dejansko kitajsko ali vietnamsko.
Likewise, the reference to recitals 132 of the provisional Regulation and recital 135 of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (contested Regulation) refers to adjustments made to the normal value when comparing it to the export price and does not allow any conclusions as to whether export sales of the Chinese companies were freely determined.
Zato ni bilo nerazumno predpostaviti, da je podjetje, omenjeno v dokumentu pred nacionalnim sodiščem, dejansko vietnamsko.
Furthermore, these parties claimed that the Commission has also not explained how it arrived to the conclusion that there would be a risk of circumvention of the antidumping measure if the exporting producers concerned were granted an individual duty rate that would, however be the underlying purpose of the IT criteria.
V vsakem primeru Komisija še vedno namerava oceniti zahtevek za TGO/IO družbe „General Footwear Ltd“ (Kitajska).
Regarding the risk of circumvention, this is only one criterion out of five listed in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation before its amendment.
V duhu dobrega upravljanja in da se izvajanje uredbe ne bi po nepotrebnem zavleklo, bo ta ocena predmet ločenega pravnega akta.
According to this Article all five criteria should be shown to be met by the exporting producer.
Argument, povezan z zahtevki za povračilo
Therefore, failure to meet one or more criteria is sufficient to deny the IT claim without examining whether the other criteria were met.
En uvoznik je priznal, da nobeden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje, ni bil njegov dobavitelj in zato meni, da ugotovitve za njegov položaj niso pomembne.
Supplier of Timberland
Ta stran je trdila, da ugotovitve o sedanjem izvajanja torej ne morejo biti podlaga za zavrnitev njenih zahtevkov za povračilo, vloženih pri nacionalni carini.
FESI contested the statement in recital 19 above according to which one of Timberland suppliers, General Shoes Limited, was wrongly identified as a Chinese supplier in the application before the national Court whereas the company was established in Vietnam.
V nadaljevanju je uvoznik zahteval preiskavo zahtevkov za TGO/IO njegovih dobaviteljev na podlagi dokumentov, ki so bili Komisiji predloženi s strani ustreznih belgijskih carinskih organov.
FESI argued that the Commission should have sought further clarification and alleged that the company was easily identifiable as a Chinese company.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno zahtevo se Komisija sklicuje na Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 2016/223 o uvedbi postopka za oceno nekaterih zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo ter individualno obravnavo kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ter izvajanju sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14, ki določa postopek v tej zadevi.
It argued that while it was true that the company appeared with a different name in the sampling form and MET claim provided in the original investigation (i.e. as General Footwear Ltd) the different company name in Timberland's application before the national Court (i.e. General Shoes Ltd) would be most likely merely due to a translation error.
Še posebej v skladu s členoma 1 in 2 navedene uredbe, bo Komisija proučila ustrezne zahtevke za TGO/IO, takoj ko bo prejela ustrezno dokumentacijo od carinskih organov.
Therefore the MET/IT request of the Chinese company General Footwear Ltd should also have been assessed.
D. SKLEPI
General Footwear Ltd is part of a company group with related companies in China and Vietnam.
Ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihovi analizi je bilo sklenjeno, da je treba ponovno uvesti preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki je za Ljudsko republiko Kitajsko v zvezi s trinajstimi zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki veljala za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe.
Both, a producer in Vietnam and another one in China provided MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
E. RAZKRITJE
In the MET/IT claim of the Chinese company, its name is consistently reported as ‘General Footwear Ltd’ with an address in China.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in vse strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so bili obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti ponovna uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz trinajstih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The producer in Vietnam is reported as ‘General Shoes Ltd’.
Po razkritju so imele na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.
It was therefore not unreasonable to assume that the company mentioned in the file before the national Court was in fact Vietnamese.
JE SPREJEL NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
In any event, it is the Commission's intention to still assess the MET/IT claim of ‘General Footwear Ltd’ (China).
Člen 1
In the spirit of sound administration and in order not to delay unnecessarily the ongoing implementation exercise, this assessment will, however, be subject to separate legal act.
Uvede se dokončna protidampinška dajatev na uvoz obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja ali umetnega usnja, razen športne obutve, obutve s posebno tehnologijo, copat in druge hišne obutve ter obutve z zaščitno kapico, s poreklom s Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo proizvajalci izvozniki iz Priloge II k tej uredbi in je uvrščena pod oznake KN: 64032000, ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 in ex64051000, ki je potekal v obdobju uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1294/2009.
Argument linked to reimbursement claims
Oznake TARIC so navedene v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
One importer acknowledged that none of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation was its supplier and therefore considered that the conclusions were not relevant to its situation.
V tej uredbi se uporabljajo naslednje opredelitve pojmov:
This party argued that the conclusions of the current implementation cannot therefore constitute a basis for denying its reimbursement requests filed at the national customs.
„športna obutev“ pomeni obutev v smislu opombe 1 k tarifnim podštevilkam v poglavju 64 Priloge I k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1719/2005;„obutev s posebno tehnologijo“ pomeni obutev s ceno CIF za par v višini najmanj 7,5 EUR, ki je namenjena športnim aktivnostim, z eno- ali večplastno oblikovanim podplatom, nebrizganim, izdelanim iz sintetičnih materialov, posebej oblikovanim, da se odpravi učinek vertikalnih ali lateralnih gibov, ter s tehničnimi značilnostmi, kakor so hermetične podloge, ki vsebujejo plin ali tekočino, mehanske komponente, ki odpravljajo ali nevtralizirajo učinek udarca, ali materiali, kakor so polimeri z nizko gostoto, ter ki je uvrščena pod oznake KN: ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
The importer further requested that the MET/IT claims of its suppliers should be investigated on the basis of the documents provided by the relevant Belgian customs authorities to the Commission.
„obutev z zaščitno kapico“ pomeni obutev, ki vsebuje zaščitno kapico z odpornostjo proti udarcem najmanj 100 joulov in je uvrščena pod oznake KN: ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 in ex64051000;
With regard to the above claim, the Commission refers to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 which sets out the procedure to be followed in this matter.
„copati in druga hišna obutev“ pomenijo obutev, ki se uvršča pod oznako KN ex64051000.
In particular, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of that Regulation, the Commission will examine the relevant MET/IT claims as soon as it has received the relevant documentation from the customs authorities.
Stopnja dokončne protidampinške dajatve pred plačilom dajatve, ki se uporablja za neto ceno franko meja Unije izdelkov iz odstavka 1, ki jih proizvajajo proizvajalci izvozniki iz Priloge II k tej uredbi, je 16,5 %.
D. CONCLUSIONS
Člen 2
Account taken of the comments made and the analysis thereof it was concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to the PRC in respect of the 13 exporting producers concerned for the period of application of the contested Regulation should be reimposed.
Člen 3
E. DISCLOSURE
Ta uredba začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The exporting producers concerned and all parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the reimposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the 13 exporting producers concerned.
Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
V Bruslju, 18. avgusta 2016
The Committee established by Article 15(1) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion,
Za Komisijo
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Predsednik
Article 1
UL L 176, 30.6.2016, str. 21.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000 which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009.
UL L 98, 6.4.2006, str. 3.
The TARIC codes are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 z dne 5. oktobra 2006 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Vietnama (UL L 275, 6.10.2006, str. 1).
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 388/2008 z dne 29. aprila 2008 o razširitvi dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov, uvedenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, na uvoz enakega izdelka, poslanega iz Posebne upravne regije Macao, ne glede na to, ali je deklariran kot izdelek s poreklom iz Posebne upravne regije Macao ali ne (UL L 117, 1.5.2008, str. 1).