natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, all five criteria listed in this article should be met so that an exporting producer can be granted MET.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (sredstva in „prenos“), družbe 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 in 25 niso dokazale, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Te družbe zlasti niso predložile bistvenih in popolnih informacij, med drugim o sredstvih v lasti družbe ter pogojih in vrednosti pravic do rabe zemljišč.
More specifically, the Commission found that most of the exporting producers concerned (Companies 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and export markets.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike obvestila o ugotovitvah o TGO in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
Moreover, some of the exporting producers concerned (Companies 8, 9, 10, 15) failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence or explanations concerning the company's decision making) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Ocena zahtevkov za IO
With regard to criterion 2 (Accounting), Companies 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 in addition failed to demonstrate that they had a set of basic accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
Člen 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, določa, da kadar se uporablja člen 2(7)(a) iste uredbe, se individualna dajatev določi za izvoznike, ki lahko dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo.
In particular, the MET assessments revealed that these companies either failed to provide the Commission with an independent auditor opinion/report, or their accounts were not audited, or lacked explicative notes on several items of the balance sheet and income statement.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 48, je treba poudariti, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, odobri IO.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry-over’), Companies 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25 failed to demonstrate that no distortions are carried over from the non-market economy system.
Za ta namen prvi pododstavek člena 9(5) določa, da mora biti vloženi zahtevek ustrezno utemeljen.
In particular, these companies failed to provide essential and complete information, inter alia, about the assets owned by the company, and the terms and the value of the land use-rights.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da izvoznik ne izpolnjuje pogojev za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Lastly, and considering the reasons set out in recital (49), the Commission did not assess criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) for any of the exporting producers concerned.
Nasprotno, ti instituciji Unije morata presoditi, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni izvoznik, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri IO.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned of the MET findings and invited them to provide comments.
V skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, morajo izvozniki na podlagi utemeljenih zahtev dokazati, da izpolnjujejo vseh pet meril iz navedenega člena, tako da se jim lahko odobri IO.
No comments were received.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, where Article 2(7)(a) of the same regulation applies, an individual duty shall however be specified for the exporters which can demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
v primeru podjetij ali skupnih podjetij, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, lahko izvozniki svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobičke v domovino;
As mentioned in recital (48) it is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT under Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
izvozne cene in količine ter prodajni pogoji se svobodno določajo;
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
večina deležev je v lasti zasebnikov; državni uradniki, ki se pojavljajo v upravnem odboru ali na ključnih upravljavskih položajih, morajo biti v manjšini ali pa je treba dokazati, da je družba kljub temu dovolj neodvisna od vmešavanja države;
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union institutions to prove that the exporter does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
pretvorbe menjalnega tečaja se opravljajo po tržni stopnji; in
On the contrary, it is for the Union institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporter concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment are fulfilled in order to grant IT.
vmešavanje države ni takšno, da bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.
In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, exporters should demonstrate on the basis of a properly substantiated claim that all five criteria listed therein are met so that they can be granted IT.
Vseh 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so zahtevali TGO, je zahtevalo tudi IO, če jim TGO ne bi bila odobrena.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Komisija je zato ocenila zahtevke za IO vsakega zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
The five criteria are the following:
Kar zadeva merilo 1 (vrnitev kapitala in dobičkov v domovino), družbi 9 in 20 nista predložili dokazov, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, da sta lahko svobodno vrnili kapital in dobičke v domovino, zato nista dokazali, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine se svobodno določijo), je Komisija ugotovila, da družbe 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 in 24 niso dokazale, da so bile poslovne odločitve, kot so izvozne cene in količine, ter prodajni pogoji svobodno določeni v odziv na tržne signale, saj je bila iz analiziranih dokazov, kot so statuti ali dovoljenja za poslovanje, razvidna omejitev pri proizvodnji in/ali količini prodaje obutve na določenih trgih.
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in deleži družbe so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države), družbe 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 in 25 niso predložile potrebnih informacij, s katerimi bi dokazale, da so bile dovolj neodvisne od vmešavanja države.
the majority of the shares belong to private persons; state officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;
Med drugim niso predložile informacij o tem, kako in pod kakšnimi pogoji je bila nanje prenesena pravica do rabe zemljišč.
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
Poleg tega družbe 8, 10, 17, 18 in 25 tudi niso dokazale, da izpolnjujejo zahteve iz merila 5 (izogibanje), saj niso predložile informacij o načinu sprejemanja odločitev v družbi.
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
Komisija ob upoštevanju določb iz uvodne izjave 56 za nobenega od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni ocenila merila 4 (pretvorbe menjalnega tečaja se opravljajo po tržni stopnji).
All 19 exporting producers concerned that requested MET claimed also IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Nobeden od 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval pogojev iz člena 9(5) osnove uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, zato jim IO ni bila odobrena.
The Commission therefore assessed the IT claims of each exporting producer concerned.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike o tem ustrezno obvestila in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
Regarding criterion 1 (Repatriation of capital and profits), Companies 9 and 20 failed to provide evidence showing that they were free to repatriate capital and profits and did thus not demonstrate that this criterion was fulfilled.
Zato bi bilo treba za izvoz 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov uvesti veljavno preostalo protidampinško dajatev v višini 16,5 % za Kitajsko in 10 % za Vietnam za obdobje uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006.
With regard to criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined), the Commission concluded that Companies 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, had failed to prove that business decisions such as export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale were freely determined in response to market signals, as the evidence analysed, such as articles of association or business licences, showed a limitation in output and/or on the sales quantities of footwear in specific markets.
Nezakonitost, ki je bila ugotovljena v teh sodbah, je, da instituciji Unije nista ugotovili, ali bi morala za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov veljati preostala dajatev ali individualna dajatev.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), Companies 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25 failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference. inter alia, no information was provided on how the land use right were transferred to these companies and at what terms and conditions.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti veljavno preostalo dajatev za Kitajsko oziroma Vietnam za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike po isti stopnji, kot je bilo prvotno določeno v izpodbijani uredbi in Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 1294/2009, spremembe Uredbe (ES) št. 388/2008 niso potrebne.
In addition, companies 8, 10, 17, 18 and 25 also failed to prove that they fulfilled the requirements of criterion 5 (Circumvention) on the basis that no information was provided as to how decisions were taken within the company.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
Lastly, considering the provisions referred to in recital (56) the Commission did not assess criterion 4 (exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate) for any of the exporting producers concerned.
C. SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE
None of the 19 exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was therefore denied to all of them.
Ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihove analize je bilo sklenjeno, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti veljavno preostalo protidampinško dajatev v višini 16,5 % za Kitajsko in 10 % za Vietnam za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly and invited them to provide comments.
D. RAZKRITJE
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, of 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should therefore be imposed for exports made by the 19 exporting producers concerned for the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
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 izvoz 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The period of application of that regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Po razkritju so imeli na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
E. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
The illegality identified in the judgments is that the Union institutions failed to establish whether the products produced by the exporting producers concerned should be subject to the residual duty or to an individual duty.
Po razkritju je Komisija prejela pripombe v imenu (i) združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev, ki zastopata uvoznike obutve v Uniji, in (ii) družbe Cortina NV („Cortina“), ki je uvoznica obutve v Uniji.
On the basis of the illegality identified by the Court, there is no legal ground for completely exempting the products produced by the exporting producers concerned from paying any anti-dumping duty.
V pripombah v zvezi z razkritjem sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev najprej navedla, da sedanje izvajanje temelji na istih pravnih podlagah in razlogih, na katerih so temeljile tudi uredbe, ki jih je Komisija že sprejela v zvezi z istim postopkom izvajanja, tj. izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 in (EU) 2016/2257.
A new act remedying the illegality identified by the Court therefore only needs to reassess the applicable anti-dumping duty rate, and not the measures themselves.
Zato sta se v svojem odgovoru na razkritje sklicevala na svoje pripombe (ter vključila sklice), ki sta jih predložila v zvezi z zgoraj navedenimi uredbami dne 16. decembra 2015, 6. junija 2016, 16. junija 2016 oziroma 11. avgusta 2016, ne da bi navedla podrobnosti teh pripomb in zahtevkov.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty applicable to China and Vietnam respectively should be re-imposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
V odgovor na te pripombe se Komisija sklicuje na izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 in (EU) 2016/2257, ki v celoti obravnavajo vse pripombe združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev v zvezi s sedanjim izvajanjem.
That latter regulation remains valid.
Ker združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev nista dodatno opredelila svojih trditev, Komisija meni, da je na trditve že v celoti odgovorila v zgoraj navedenih uredbah, sklepi v zvezi z njimi iz navedenih uredb pa se s tem potrdijo.
C. CONCLUSIONS
Poleg tega sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev predložila pripombe, ki so podrobno obravnavane v nadaljevanju.
Having taken account of the comments made and the analysis thereof, it was concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, i.e. 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should be re-imposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
Položaj družb iz Priloge III
D. DISCLOSURE
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta navedla, da je pristop Komisije, ki ga je uporabila v zvezi z družbami iz Priloge III, nezakonit.
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 re-imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the 19 exporting producers concerned.
Ker je Komisija v Prilogi III navedla družbe, povezane z družbami, ki so bile že ocenjene v okviru izvedbenih uredb (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 ali (EU) 2016/2257, je kršila koncept „enega samega gospodarskega subjekta“, ki ga je uporabila v prvotni preiskavi.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
Poleg tega bi tak pristop povzročil pravne nedoslednosti, saj je Komisija z navedenimi uredbami za te družbe ponovno uvedla protidampinške dajatve, v Prilogi III pa so iste družbe navedene kot družbe, za katere se zdi, da v prvotni preiskavi niso predložile zahtevka za TGO/IO.
E. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Za nepovezane trgovce ni bilo pravne zahteve, da bi morali v prvotni preiskavi vložiti zahtevek za TGO/IO, zato jih v nobenem primeru ne bi bilo treba navesti v Prilogi III.
Following disclosure, the Commission received comments on behalf of (i) FESI and the Footwear Coalition representing importers of footwear in the Union; and (ii) Cortina NV (‘Cortina’), an importer of footwear in the Union.
Kar zadeva kitajske ali vietnamske dobavitelje, ki so v prvotni preiskavi vložili zahtevek za TGO/IO, vendar še niso bili ocenjeni v nobeni uredbi iz uvodne izjave 63 v okviru izvajanja sodb iz uvodne izjave 12, sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da prav tako ne bi smeli biti navedeni v Prilogi III.
In their comments to the disclosure, FESI and the Footwear Coalition first noted that the current implementation is based on the same legal grounds and reasons as the regulations previously adopted by the Commission related to the same implementation procedure, i.e. Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257.
Natančneje, trdila sta, da bi tak pristop Komisiji v prihodnosti preprečil oceno katerega koli zahtevka za TGO/IO njihovih povezanih dobaviteljev na Kitajskem ali v Vietnamu.
Therefore, in their reply to the disclosure, they referred to, and incorporated by reference, the comments they had filed in relation to the above Regulations on 16 December 2015, 6 June 2016, 16 June 2016 and 11 August 2016 respectively, without, however, detailing such comments and claims.
Isti strani sta trdili, da bi morala Komisija na seznamu družb, ki so jih priglasili nacionalni carinski organi, opredeliti tiste družbe/trgovce, ki spadajo v isto skupino družb, in ugotoviti, ali so del katerega od kitajskih ali vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so v prvotni preiskavi vložili zahtevek za TGO/IO, vendar v njej niso bili vzorčeni.
In reply to these comments the Commission refers to Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 which fully addressed the comments made by FESI and the Footwear Coalition in the current implementation.
V nasprotnem primeru bi Komisija zainteresiranim stranem naložila nemogoče dokazno breme.
Since FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not elaborate on their arguments any further, the Commission considers that these have been fully replied to in the above regulations and the conclusions made in this regard in these regulations are herewith confirmed.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 34, sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev dejansko opredelili družbe, povezane s kitajskimi ali vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so v prvotni preiskavi predložili obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni in tudi niso bili ocenjeni v izvedbenih uredbah iz uvodnih izjav 18 do 20 ter 25.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition provided comments that are addressed in detail below.
Informacije v spisu so potrdile informacije, prejete od teh zainteresiranih strani, zato se bodo zahtevki za TGO/IO teh družb ocenili.
Status of companies listed in Annex III
Rezultat te ocene bo predmet ločenega pravnega akta.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the approach followed by the Commission with regard to the companies listed in Annex III was illegal.
Zahteva v zvezi s temi družbami je bila torej odobrena in te družbe niso navedene v Prilogi III.
Thus, by listing in Annex III companies that were related to companies already assessed in the context of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 or (EU) 2016/2257, the Commission had breached the concept of ‘single economic entity’ however applied in the original investigation.
Kar zadeva trgovce, ki so zahtevali povračilo plačanih dajatev (ki so ali niso povezani s kitajskimi ali vietnamskimi dobavitelji), Komisija meni, da je dokazno breme na teh trgovcih.
In addition, such approach would lead to legal inconsistencies as via the previously mentioned Regulations the Commission re-imposed anti-dumping duties on these companies, while in Annex III the same companies are listed as companies that appear not have submitted any MET/IT claim in the original investigation.
Vendar nobeden od trgovcev, navedenih v Prilogi III, ni predložil informacij ali dokaza o svojih dobaviteljih na Kitajskem ali v Vietnamu (razen tistih, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 76).
As for unrelated traders, as they had no legal requirement to file MET/IT claims during the original investigation it would in any event not be required to list them in Annex III.
Vendar 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.
Finally, for companies related to Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers that had filed an MET/IT claim in the original investigation, but have not yet been assessed in any regulation referred to in recital (63), in the context of the implementation of the judgments referred to in recital (12), FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that those should also not have been listed in Annex III.
Da bi se zagotovilo polno spoštovanje njihove pravice do obrambe, se je Komisija odločila, da posebej vzpostavi stik z zadevnimi uvozniki ter jih seznani s položajem in njihovim dokaznim bremenom.
In particular, it was claimed that such an approach would prevent the Commission in future to assess any MET/IT claim of their related suppliers in China or Vietnam.
Da bi se zagotovil čas, potreben za izvajanje te odločitve, se preverjanje družb iz Priloge III začasno odloži, dokler Komisija ne vzpostavi stika z zadevnimi uvozniki in jim da čas za odziv.
The same parties also claimed that it would be the Commission's obligation to identify from the list of companies notified by the national customs authorities those companies/traders belonging to the same company group and whether they form part of any of the Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that filed a MET/IT claim during the original investigation but that were not sampled during the original investigation.
Rok osmih mesecev za oceno zahtevkov za TGO/IO bo začel teči na dan, ko bo uvoznik Komisiji sporočil imena in naslove zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, oziroma, če v časovnem obdobju, ki ga navede Komisija, po preteku roka ne bo odgovora.
Otherwise, the Commission would create an impossible burden of proof for the interested parties.
Začasna odložitev izvajanja
As mentioned in recital (34), following disclosure, FESI and the Footwear Coalition, identified indeed companies 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).
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da Komisija v interesu pravne varnosti ne bi smela sprejeti ter objaviti kakršnih koli nadaljnjih pravnih aktov o izvajanju sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14, dokler Sodišče v predhodnih odločbah ne odloči o veljavnosti Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 iz uvodne izjave 23 ter veljavnosti Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1647 iz uvodne izjave 19 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1731 iz uvodne izjave 20.
The information in the file confirmed the information received by these interested parties, so that the MET/IT requests of these companies will be assessed.
V zvezi s tem sta trdila, da se člen 278 PDEU, v skladu s katerim sodni postopki zoper pravne akte, ki so jih sprejele institucije, nimajo odložilnega učinka, v tem primeru ne uporablja, saj zahtevek v zvezi s tem ni bil vložen, da bi se začasno odložilo izvajanje Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223, ampak, da se ne bi sprejele dodatne uredbe o dokončni uvedbi protidampinških dajatev na uvoz obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama.