natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have been validly established at the time of adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
V vsakem primeru nekdanje prakse v drugih primerih ne predstavljajo natančnega in brezpogojnega zagotovila za obravnavani primer.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit the reimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties to the future.
Vse strani, na katere se nanaša postopek, tj. zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in strani v zadevah pred sodiščem ter združenje, ki zastopa eno od teh strani, so bile z razkritjem obveščene o pomembnih dejstvih, na podlagi katerih namerava Komisija sprejeti sedanjo oceno TGO/IO.
The present Regulation does not therefore in any event depart from the decisional practice of the Institutions, even if it was relevant.
S tem so njihove pravice do obrambe zaščitene.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to re-open the investigation, the Commission recalls the case-law quoted above at recital (15), pursuant to which it may resume the investigation at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti poudariti, da nepovezani uvozniki v okviru protidampinškega postopka niso deležni pravice do obrambe, saj ti postopki niso usmerjeni proti njim.
According to the case-law, the legality of an anti-dumping Regulation has to be assessed in the light of the objective norms of Union law, and not of a decisional practice, even where such a practice exists (which is not the case here).
V zvezi z domnevnim odstopanjem od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti se sklicuje na uvodne izjave 62 do 69, kjer je bilo to obsežno obravnavano.
Hence, the fact that the Commission may have followed in the past in certain cases a different practice cannot create legitimate expectations.
V zvezi z domnevno uporabo dveh različnih pravnih režimov pri trenutnem izvajanju se sklicuje na uvodne izjave 87 do 90, kjer je bilo to obsežno obravnavano.
That is all the more the case because the previous practice referred to does not correspond to the factual and legal situation of the present case, and differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva pripombe združenja FESI po razkritju ocene TGO zadevnih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, jih je Komisija v celoti obravnavala v sedanji uredbi v uvodnih izjavah 32 in 39.
Those differences are as follows: The illegality identified by the Court does not concern the findings on dumping, injury, and Union interest, and therefore the principle of the imposition of the duty, but only the precise duty rate.
Druga postopkovna vprašanja
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da bi morale biti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom glede trenutnega izvajanja zagotovljene enake procesne pravice, kot so bile zagotovljene vzorčnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom med prvotno preiskavo.
The Institutions therefore considered it more appropriate to adopt new measures for the future.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da zlasti kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom niso bile zagotovljene nobene možnosti, da bi dopolnili obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO prek pozivov k dopolnitvam, in da je bila opravljena le teoretična analiza, ne pa tudi preveritveni obisk na kraju samem.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need whatsoever to seek additional information from interested parties.
Poleg tega je združenje FESI dodalo, da Komisija ni zagotovila ustrezne dostave razkritja ocene zahtevkov za TGO/IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed with it, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Združenje FESI je nadalje trdilo, da proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih to izvajanje zadeva, niso bila zagotovljena enaka postopkovna jamstva kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v standardnih protidampinških preiskavah, ampak so bili uporabljeni strožji standardi.
In any event, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da Komisija ni upoštevala časovnega zamika med vložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi in oceno teh zahtevkov.
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the Court cases and the association representing one of those parties, have been informed by the disclosure of the relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission intends to adopt the present MET/IT assessment.
Poleg tega je bilo proizvajalcem izvoznikom med prvotno preiskavo zagotovljenih le 15 dni, da vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namesto običajnih 21 dni.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
Komisija opozarja, da mora biti na podlagi sodne prakse dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO/IO.
Regarding the alleged derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity, reference is made to the recitals (62) to (69) where this was addressed extensively.
V skladu z mnenjem Sodišča v sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang institucijama zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Regarding the alleged application of two different legal regimes in the current implementation reference is made to recitals (87) to (90) where this was addressed extensively.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora 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/IO (glej uvodno izjavo 32).
Finally, concerning the comments provided by FESI following the disclosure of the MET assessment of the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned, these have been addressed fully by the Commission in the current Regulation in recitals (32) and (39) above.
Pravica do zaslišanja se nanaša na možnost, da strani izrazijo svoja mnenja in da jih Komisija preuči.
FESI claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Kot omenjeno v predhodni uvodni izjavi, lahko Komisija svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je proizvajalec izvoznik že predložil.
FESI argued in particular, that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters and that only desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits.
V vsakem primeru zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso izpodbijali ocene njihovih zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki jih je sprejela Komisija, prav tako pa niso navedli, na katere dokumente ali osebe se ne morejo več sklicevati.
In addition, FESI added that the Commission did not ensure the due delivery of the disclosure of the assessment of MET/IT requests to the exporting producers concerned.
Ta trditev je zato tako abstraktna, da Komisija teh težav pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO ne more upoštevati.
FESI further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Ker navedena trditev temelji na domnevah in ni podprta z natančnimi navedbami o tem, kateri dokumenti in osebe niso več na voljo ter kakšen pomen imajo ti dokumenti in ljudje za oceno zahtevka za TGO/IO, jo je treba zavrniti.
FESI claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Kar zadeva člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe, je Komisija v obravnavani zadevi sprejela informacije, ki so jih predložili zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki, teh informacij torej ni zavrnila, pač pa je svojo oceno utemeljila na njih.
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Komisija zato ni uporabila člena 18.
Also, FESI claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Očitne napake pri oceni zahtevkov za TGO/IO
The Commission 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.
Ocena TGO
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.
V zvezi z merilom 1 je združenje FESI izpodbijalo oceno Komisije v zvezi z zahtevki za TGO zadevnih kitajskih in vietnamskih dobaviteljev.
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 recital (32)).
Združenje FESI je pozvalo Komisijo, naj predloži podrobnejše informacije, na podlagi katerih je bilo sklenjeno, da poslovne odločitve treh kitajskih in vietnamskih dobaviteljev niso bile sprejete v skladu s tržnimi signali brez znatnega vmešavanja države.
The right to be heard concerns the opportunity of the party to express its views and the Commission to consider these views.
V zvezi s tem je združenje FESI opozorilo, da mora v skladu z merilom 1 člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe vmešavanje države preseči zgolj vplivanje.
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.
V zvezi z merilom 2 je združenje FESI opozorilo, da ne more razumeti osnovnih razlogov za zavrnitev TGO, ker je ocena Komisije nejasna.
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Združenje FESI v zvezi z merilom 3, ki se sklicuje na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi T-586/14 Xinyi OV proti Komisiji, trdi, da davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi niso kazali na morebitno izkrivljanje ali netržno ekonomsko vedenje.
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.
Na podlagi tega so strani trdile, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri uporabi člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe in prav tako ni ustrezno obrazložila zavrnitve zahtevkov za TGO proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Commission cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Kar zadeva zahtevek po podrobnejših informacijah, vključenih v zahtevke za TGO/IO treh kitajskih in vietnamskih dobaviteljev, na podlagi katerih je Komisija zavrnila merilo 1, je treba opozoriti, da so bile te informacije Komisiji predložene zaupno, saj so vsebovale poslovne skrivnosti.
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 rejected.
Teh informacij kot takih zato ni mogoče razkriti, zainteresiranim stranem je mogoče predložiti le nezaupni povzetek.
Regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, in the current case the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned, it did not reject this information and based its assessment on it.
V zvezi z merilom 3 Komisija potrjuje, da davčne spodbude ali preferenčni davčni režimi (če obstajajo) niso bili upoštevani kot razlog za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply Article 18.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva merilo 2, člen 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe jasno določa, da morajo imeti podjetja jasno določeno zbirko računovodskih evidenc, ki se revidirajo neodvisno v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi in se uporabljajo za vse namene.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Nobeden od zadevnih kitajskih ali vietnamskih dobaviteljev ni izpolnil teh zahtev.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi 35, so bile ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti naslednje: odsotnost revidiranih računovodskih izkazov ali revizorjevih mnenj, revizorji so v svojem mnenju opozorili na resna vprašanja (kot so neskladnost z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi) ter protislovja glede posojil med nekaterimi izjavami v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO in računovodskih izkazih.
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
Vse trditve združenja FESI so se zato zavrnile, ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 32 do 39 pa potrdile.
MET assessment
Ocena IO
Regarding criterion 1 FESI contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of the Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers concerned.
Združenje FESI je najprej s sklicevanjem na merilo 2 za IO trdilo, da Komisija ni dokazala, da izvozne cene niso bile svobodno določene, in da bi morala Komisija ugotoviti, ali in kako je na izvozne cene vplivalo vmešavanje države.
FESI requested the Commission to provide more detailed information on the basis of which it was concluded that business decisions of the three Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers were not taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Poleg tega je združenje FESI trdilo, da je ugotovitev, da izvozne cene niso bile določene svobodno, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami prvotne preiskave, povezane s prodajo s strani proizvajalcev originalne opreme, kjer je bilo ugotovljeno, da so uvozniki, kot sta družbi Puma in Timberland, opravljali lastne R&R in iskanje surovin, ko so kupovali od svojih dobaviteljev.
In this regard, FESI recalled that in accordance with criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, state interference needs to go beyond mere influence.
Na podlagi tega je združenje FESI trdilo, da imata družbi Puma in Timberland pomemben nadzor nad proizvodnim procesom in specifikacijami ter da zato ni bilo možnosti vmešavanja države.
Regarding criterion 2, FESI observed that it was unable to understand the basic grounds for MET rejection given the vagueness of the Commission's assessment.
Kot je navedeno v zgornji uvodni izjavi 41, je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi odobritev IO.
Regarding criterion 3, referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, FESI argued that tax incentives or preferential tax regimes, were not indicative for any distortion or non-market economy behaviour.
Kot je tudi pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 46, proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni uspelo dokazati, da so bile poslovne odločitve sprejete brez vmešavanja države.
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 it has also not provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the exporting producers' MET requests.
Omenjeno je tudi, da se merilo 2 za IO 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.
As to the request for more detailed information included in the MET/IT claims of the three Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers on the basis of which the Commission rejected criterion 1, it is noted that such information was provided to the Commission on a confidential basis as it contained business secrets.
V podporo trditvi, da so bile izvozne cene svobodno določene, se je združenje FESI sklicevalo na uvodno izjavo 269 Uredbe (ES) št. 553/2006 (začasna uredba).
This information could therefore not be disclosed as such and only a non-confidential summary thereof can be provided to interested parties.
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.
Concerning criterion 3, the Commission confirms that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET request.
Prav tako se sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo 132 začasne uredbe in uvodno izjavo 135 Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 (izpodbijana uredba) nanaša na prilagoditve normalne vrednosti v primerjavi z izvozno ceno in ne dopušča kakršnih koli zaključkov o tem, ali je bil izvoz vietnamskih družb določen svobodno.
Finally, as regards criterion 2, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation clearly stipulates that firms must have one set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes.
Poleg tega je združenje FESI trdilo, da Komisija prav tako ni pojasnila, kako je prišla do zaključkov, da bi obstajalo tveganje izogibanja protidampinškemu ukrepu, če bi bila zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom odobrena individualna stopnja dajatve, ki pa bi bila osnovni namen merila za IO.
None of the Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers concerned fulfilled these requirements.
Kar zadeva tveganje izogibanja, je to le eno merilo od petih, naštetih v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe pred njeno spremembo.
As outlined in recital (35) the deficiencies observed were the absence of audited accounts or auditor's opinions, severe issues highlighted by auditors in their opinion (such as non-compliance with international accounting standards) and contradictions regarding loans between certain statements made in the MET claim form and the financial statements.
V skladu s tem členom bi moralo biti dokazano, da proizvajalec izvoznik izpolnjuje vseh 5 meril.
All claims made by FESI were therefore rejected and the findings laid out in recitals (32) to (39) confirmed.
Neizpolnjevanje enega ali več meril zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO brez preučevanja, ali so druga merila izpolnjena.
IT assessment
E. SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE
FESI first argued referring to IT criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was for the Commission to establish whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
Ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihovi analizi je bilo sklenjeno, da bi bilo treba za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe v primeru družbe General Footwear Ltd. ponovno uvesti preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki se uporablja za Kitajsko, tj. 16,5 %, v primeru družb Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd in Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Moreover, FESI argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to original equipment manufacturers (‘OEM’) sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma and Timberland were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from their suppliers.
Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd.“) pa preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki se uporablja za Vietnam, tj. 10 %.
On this basis, FESI claimed that Puma and Timberland had significant control over the production process and specifications and that there was therefore no possibility of State interference.
Ta uredba je v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 15(1) Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 –
As already mentioned in recital (41) above the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
As also explained above in recital (46) the exporting producers failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made without State interference.
Člen 1
It is also noted that IT 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.
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 in iz Vietnama, ki jo proizvajajo proizvajalci izvozniki iz člena 1(3) 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 (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009.
However, this recital addressed the re-sale 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.
V tej uredbi se uporabljajo naslednje opredelitve pojmov:
Likewise, the reference to recital (132) of the provisional Regulation and recital (135) of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (the 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 Vietnamese companies were freely determined.
„športna obutev“ pomeni obutev v smislu opombe 1 k tarifnim podštevilkam v poglavju 64 Priloge I Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1719/2005;
Furthermore, FESI claimed that the Commission has also not explained how it arrived to the conclusion that there would be a risk of circumvention of the anti-dumping measure if the exporting producers concerned were granted an individual duty rate that would, however, be the underlying purpose of the IT criteria.
„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;
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.
„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;
According to this Article all 5 criteria should be shown to be met by the exporting producer.
„copati in druga hišna obutev“ pomeni obutev, ki se uvršča pod oznako KN ex64051000.