natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 1 (poslovne odločitve).
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.
Natančneje, informacije, ki jih je predložil vsak od treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, so pokazale, da se poslovne odločitve niso sprejemale kot odziv na tržne signale, ki odražajo ponudbo in povpraševanje, 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), ga nista izpolnili dve družbi (družbi 1 in 2).
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).
Računovodski izkazi obeh družb so pokazali pomanjkljivosti in niso bili v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodski izkazi.
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.
Tako so bili nekateri stroški napačno uvrščeni kot sredstva, pri čemer bi v zadevnem obdobju morali biti rezervirani kot strošek (družba 2), v drugem primeru pa so revizorji ugotovili, da računovodski izkazi niso bili v skladu z računovodskimi pravili in načeli v državah zunaj zadevne države.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Družba 3 je predložila seznam osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki so bile neodvisno revidirane v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criteria 1 (Business decisions).
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (sredstva in „prenos“), nobeden od treh zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da iz nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
More specifically, the information provided by each of the three exporting producers indicated that business decision were not made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand without significant State interference.
Nobeden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni zagotovil popolnih informacij (npr. dokazilo o najemni ali zakupni pogodbi, informacije o pogojih, cenah in plačilih ali poročila o preveritvi kapitala), s katerimi bi dokazal, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
As concerns criterion 2 (Accounting), two companies (Companies 1 and 2) did not meet this criterion.
Zaradi razlogov iz uvodne izjave 32 ter glede na to, da noben proizvajalec izvoznik ni izpolnil meril 1 in 3, dva proizvajalca izvoznika pa nista izpolnila merila 2, se merilo 4 (stečajno pravo in pravo lastninskih razmerij) in merilo 5 (pretvorbe glede menjalnega tečaja) nista ocenila.
The accounts of both companies showed deficiencies and were not in compliance with international accounting standards.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da se nobenemu od treh zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne odobri TGO, in o tem ustrezno obvestila zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike, ki so bili pozvani, naj predložijo pripombe.
Thus, certain expenses were wrongly classified as an asset while they should have been booked as an expense in the period concerned (Company 2), while in another case, the auditors notes observed that the financial accounts are not in accordance with accounting rules and principles in countries outside the country concerned.
Komisija od nobenega od treh zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni prejela pripomb.
Regarding Company 3, it submitted one set of basic accounting records which were independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
Zato nobeden od zadevnih treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne izpolnjuje vseh pogojev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zaradi česar se TGO zanje ne odobri.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry-over’), none of the three exporting producers concerned could show that no distortions are carried over from the former non-market economy system.
Ocena zahtevkov za IO
None of the exporting producers provided complete information (e.g. evidence of the rental or lease contract, information concerning terms, prices and payments or capital verification reports) to demonstrate that no distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system.
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.
For the reasons set out in recital (32), following the failure to meet criterion 1 and criterion 3 by any of the exporting producers and criterion 2 by two of the exporting producers, criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) were not assessed.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 32, 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.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that none of the three exporting producers concerned should be granted MET and informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly, which were invited to provide comments.
V ta namen prvi pododstavek člena 9(5) določa, da mora biti vloženi zahtevek ustrezno utemeljen.
No comments were received from any of the three exporting producers concerned.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da izvoznik ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Therefore, none of the three exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, denied for all of them.
Nasprotno, ti instituciji Unije morata oceniti, 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.
Assessment of the IT claims
V skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, morajo izvozniki na podlagi ustrezno utemeljenega zahtevka dokazati, da izpolnjujejo vseh pet meril iz navedenega člena, tako da se jim lahko odobri 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.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.
As mentioned in recital (32) 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.
Uporablja se naslednjih pet meril:
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
izvozniki lahko v primeru podjetij ali skupnih podjetij, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobičke v domovino;
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.
izvozne cene in količine ter pogoji prodaje so svobodno določeni;
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.
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;
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 in this Article are met so that they can be granted IT.
pretvorbe menjalnega tečaja se opravljajo po tržni stopnji; in
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
država se ne vmešava toliko, da bi dovoljevala izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
Nobeden od treh zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine so svobodno določene).
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;
Zato niso mogli dokazati, da se poslovne odločitve, kot so na primer izvozne količine, sprejemajo svobodno in kot odziv na tržne signale, ki odražajo ponudbo in povpraševanje.
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
V zvezi z merilom 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in deleži družbe so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države) družba 1 ni mogla dokazati, da mora plačevati najemnino za uporabo zemljišča, pri čemer je računovodski izkaz pokazal, da je bila določeno obdobje oproščena takih plačil.
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
Družba 2 je predložila nasprotujoče si informacije, pa tudi prispevek delničarja, kar zadeva tovarno, infrastrukturo in začetne stroške v zvezi z zemljiščem, je nejasen.
All three exporting producers concerned that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Nazadnje, družba 3 ni zagotovila nobenega dokaza o najemni pogodbi za zemljišče ter nobenih informacij o pogojih, cenah in plačilih.
None of the three exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that they met Criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined).
Poleg tega je bilo za vse tri družbe ugotovljeno, da je bil obseg njihovega poslovanja omejen.
More specifically, for two of the exporting producers concerned (Companies 1 and 2) the business license set a limitation to sales quantities on specific markets, while for the third company (Company 3) the Articles of Association stipulated a limitation in output as well as a limitation to sales quantities on specific markets.
V zvezi s tem ni nobeden od zadevnih treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov dokazal, da bi bil zadosti neodvisen pred vmešavanjem države.
Therefore they failed to demonstrate that business decisions, such as export quantities are freely determined and made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Zato nobeden od zadevnih treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval pogojev iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, Komisija pa je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike o tem ustrezno obvestila in jih pozvala k predložitvi pripomb.
As regards Criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), Company 1 could not show that it is subject to the payment of a rent for the use of land, while the financial statement indicated that it was exempted from such payments for a certain period.
Komisija od nobenega od treh zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni prejela pripomb, zaradi česar se IO zanje ni odobrila.
Regarding Company 2, it provided contradictory information and the contribution of the shareholder regarding the factory, infrastructure and the initial expenses related to land were unclear.
Preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki se uporablja za Kitajsko, bi bilo zato treba uvesti za izvoz družbe General Footwear Ltd, preostalo dajatev, ki se uporablja za Vietnam, pa za izvoz družb Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd in Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Finally, Company 3 did not provide any evidence on the rental contract for the land and no information about terms, prices and payments.
Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd.“), in sicer za obdobje uporabe iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
In addition, for all three companies, it was established that there were limitations in their business scope.
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.
On this basis, none of the three exporting producers concerned showed that it was sufficiently independent from State interference.
Ker je ugotovljeno, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti preostalo dajatev 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.
Therefore, none of the three exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and the Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly, which were invited to provide comments.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
No comments were received from any of the three exporting producers concerned and IT was, as a result, denied to all of them.
C. RAZKRITJE
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China should therefore be imposed for exports made by General Footwear Ltd and the residual duty applicable for Vietnam for exports made by Diamond Vietnam Co.
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 štirinajstih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Po razkritju so imeli na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.
Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co.
D. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
Ltd’) for the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Zgoraj navedene ugotovitve in sklepi so bili razkriti zainteresiranim stranem, ki jim je bil določen rok za pripombe.
The period of application of that Regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Združenje FESI ter družbe Wolverine Europe BV, Wolverine Europe Limited, Damco Netherlands BV in Skechers so se javili in predložili pripombe.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
Domnevne nepravilnosti v postopku
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.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da je pri sedanjem izvajanju prišlo do številnih kršitev postopka.
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.
Opozorilo je na dejstvo, da so bili zahtevki za TGO zadevnih treh kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov že preverjeni in razkriti pred sodbo Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE, tj. dne 3. decembra 2015, kot tudi namen Komisije, da ponovno uvede dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz obutve v višini 16,5 % oziroma 10 %.
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.
Te ocene naj bi bile torej opravljene brez pravne podlage in so predhodno posegale v prihajajočo sodbo Sodišča.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty should be reimposed 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 sklepu je združenje FESI trdilo, da je Komisija kršila osnovni pravni okvir EU in s tem povzročila zlorabo svojih pooblastil.
That Regulation remains valid.
Vendar pa se Komisija ne strinja z zgornjimi trditvami, saj je samo pripravljala izvajanje morebitne prihodnje sodbe.
C. DISCLOSURE
Takšna priprava zagotavlja dobro vodenje iz naslednjih razlogov: Prvič, nesporno je, da bi Komisija morala preučiti zahtevke za TGO/IO.
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 fourteen exporting producers concerned.
Edino sporno vprašanje, ki je še bilo v postopku pred Sodiščem, je bilo, ali se lahko nepovezani uvozniki, kot sta družbi Puma in Timberland, sklicujejo na to nezakonitost.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
Ker gre za binarno odločitev da/ne, se Komisija lahko izjemoma pripravi na morebitno negativno sodbo o tem vprašanju.
D. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Drugič, hitro izvajanje je bilo potrebno, da se nacionalnim carinskim organom omogoči, da hitro obravnavajo nerešene zahtevke za povračilo, ter da se zagotovi pravna varnost za vse gospodarske subjekte.
FESI, as well as Wolverine Europe BV, Wolverine Europe Limited and Damco Netherlands BV, and Skechers, came forward and provided comments.
Zato so bile vse trditve v zvezi z nepravilnostmi v postopku zavrnjene.
Alleged irregularities in the procedure
Pravna podlaga za nadaljevanje protidampinškega postopka
FESI claimed that there were a number of procedural errors in the current implementation.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da ni bilo pravne podlage za sedanje izvajanje.
They pointed to the fact that the MET claims of the three Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned were already examined and disclosed prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, i.e. on 3 December 2015, as well as the Commission's intention to reimpose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear of 16,5 % and 10 % respectively.
Združenje FESI je zlasti trdilo, da člena 266 PDEU ni mogoče uporabiti na podlagi dejstva, da so dokončni ukrepi za obutev potekli 31. marca 2011 in da torej ni nobenih nadaljevalnih učinkov, ki izhajajo iz nezakonitosti teh ukrepov.
These assessments would therefore have been carried out without legal basis and were pre-empting the up-coming judgment of the Court of Justice.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da člen 266 PDEU ni namenjen retroaktivnemu popravljanju nezakonitosti pretečenih ukrepov.
In conclusion, FESI argued that the Commission violated the basic legal framework of the EU and thus exercised an abuse of its powers.
To stališče bi bilo okrepljeno s členoma 263 in 265 PDEU, ki določata roke za vložitev tožbe zaradi nezakonitih dejanj in nedelovanja institucij Unije.
The Commission does not agree with the above claims as it only prepared the implementation of a possible future judgment.
Združenje FESI je nadalje trdilo, da trenutni pristop nima precedensov in da tudi Komisija ni zagotovila obrazložitve ali predhodne sodne prakse, ki bi podprla njeno razlago člena 266 PDEU.
Such preparation was to ensure sound administration, for the following reasons: First, it is uncontested that the Commission ought to have examined the MET/IT requests.
Združenje FESI je tudi trdilo, da v tem primeru preiskave ni mogoče nadaljevati na točki, kjer je prišlo do nezakonitosti na podlagi člena 266 PDEU, ker Sodišče ni ugotovilo zgolj odsotnosti obrazložitve, ampak nezakonitost zadeva jedro zakonske določbe osnovne uredbe in vpliva na celotno oceno dampinga, povezanega z zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki.
The only issue that was at stake in the Court proceedings still pending at that time was whether an unrelated importer such as Puma and Timberland can rely on that illegality.
Združenje FESI je nadalje trdilo, da retroaktivni popravek pretečenih ukrepov krši načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
As a result of that yes/no binary choice, the Commission could exceptionally prepare for the event of a negative judgment on this question.
Združenje FESI je sprva trdilo, da bi strani dobile zagotovilo, da so ukrepi pretekli 31. marca 2011 in da glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakujejo, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo nadaljevala ali ponovno začela.
Second, swift implementation was necessary in order to enable national customs authorities to deal quickly with pending requests for reimbursement, and to provide legal certainty for all operators.
Drugič, že samo dejstvo, da v prvotni preiskavi zahtevki za TGO niso bili preiskani v roku 3 mesecev, vietnamskim in kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom ponuja pravno zagotovilo, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO dejansko ne bodo pregledani.
Any influence on the Court's judgment was excluded, as that judgment concerned a different subject-matter (namely whether importers can rely on the right to have MET/IT claims assessed vested in exporting producers).
V zaključku so strani trdile, da glede na dolgo časovno obdobje nadaljevanje preiskave predstavlja kršitev splošnega načela zastaranja ali omejitve, ki se uporablja v vseh pravnih okvirih.
Consequently, all the claims regarding procedural irregularities were rejected.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da niti člen 266 PDEU niti osnovna uredba ne dovoljujeta retroaktivne ponovne uvedbe dokončne dajatve v višini 10 % oziroma 16,5 % na uvoz zadevnih vietnamskih in kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Legal basis for the resumption of the anti-dumping proceeding
Glede trditve, da so zadevni ukrepi potekli 31. marca 2011, Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi iztek ukrepov kakor koli vplival na možnost Komisije, da po sodbi, ki razveljavlja prvotni akt, sprejme nov akt, ki bi zamenjal razveljavljeni akt.
FESI claimed that there was no legal basis for the current implementation.
V skladu s sodno prakso iz uvodne izjave 15 bi se moral upravni postopek nadaljevati v točki, ko je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
In particular FESI claimed that Article 266 TFEU is not applicable on the grounds that the definitive measures on footwear expired on 31 March 2011 and that there are therefore no continued effects ensuing from the illegality of these measures.
Protidampinški postopki zato še vedno niso zaključeni, saj je bil akt, ki je sklenil postopke, razglašen za ničnega.
FESI argued that Article 266 TFEU is not intended to correct retroactively illegalities to expired measures.
Komisija mora zaključiti navedene postopke; člen 9 osnovne uredbe določa, da mora biti preiskava zaključena z aktom Komisije.
This view would be reinforced by Articles 263 and 265 TFEU which set time limits for bringing actions against illegal acts and failure to act on the part of the Union Institutions.
Kar zadeva trditev glede retroaktivnosti na podlagi člena 10 osnovne uredbe in člena 10 Protidampinškega sporazuma Svetovne trgovinske organizacije („PDS STO“), člen 10(1) osnovne uredbe, v katerem je prevzeto besedilo člena 10(1) PDS STO, navaja, da se začasni ukrepi in dokončne protidampinške dajatve uporabijo samo za izdelke, ki vstopajo v prosti promet od trenutka, ko prične veljati odločitev, sprejeta v skladu s členom 7(1) ali členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe, kar je odvisno od konkretne zadeve.