natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije („PDEU“) in zlasti člena 266 Pogodbe,
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2016 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske unije („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9(4) ter člena 14(1) in (3) Uredbe,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and 14(1) and (3) thereof,
A. POSTOPEK
Whereas:
Komisija je 23. marca 2006 sprejela Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 553/2006 o uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja („obutev“) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“ ali „Kitajska“) in Vietnama („začasna uredba“).
A. PROCEDURE
Z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 je Svet uvedel dokončne protidampinške dajatve v višini od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama in Ljudske republike Kitajske za dve leti („Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006“ ali „izpodbijana uredba“).
On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘China’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 388/2008 je Svet dokončne protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske razširil na uvoz izdelkov, poslanih iz Posebne upravne regije Macao, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirani kot izdelki s poreklom iz Posebne upravne regije Macao ali ne.
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov, ki se je začel 3. oktobra 2008, je Svet z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 1294/2009 protidampinške ukrepe podaljšal za 15 mesecev, tj. do 31. marca 2011, ko so ukrepi prenehali veljati („Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 1294/2009“).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co.
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008, the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, i.e. until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Ltd („vložniki“) so izpodbijano uredbo izpodbijale na Sodišču prve stopnje (zdaj Splošnem sodišču).
Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
S sodbama z dne 4. marca 2010 v zadevi Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, T-401/06, ter z dne 4. marca 2010 v združenih zadevah Zhejiang Aokang Shoes in Wenzhou Taima Shoes proti Svetu, T-407/06 in T-408/06, jih je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo.
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council the General Court rejected those challenges.
Vložniki so se na ti sodbi pritožili.
The applicants appealed those judgments.
V sodbah z dne 2. februarja 2012 v zadevi Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, C-249/10 P, ter z dne 15. novembra 2012 v zadevi Zhejiang Aokang Shoes proti Svetu, C-247/10P („sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang“), je Sodišče navedeni sodbi razveljavilo.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
Menilo je, da je Splošno sodišče napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je navedlo, da Komisija ni bila zavezana preučitvi zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“), ki so temeljili na členu 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe in so jih predložili trgovci, ki niso zajeti z vzorcem (točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P ter točki 29 in 32 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Sodišče je nato razsodilo.
The Court of Justice then gave judgment itself in the matter.
Menilo je, da „[…] bi Komisija morala preučiti ustrezno utemeljene zahtevke, ki so ji jih pritožnice predložile na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe, da bi se jim v okviru protidampinškega postopka, na katerega se sporna uredba nanaša, odobrila TGO.
It held that ‘the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation.
Dalje, ugotoviti je treba, da ni izključeno, da bi jim bila zaradi take preučitve naložena dokončna protidampinška dajatev, ki bi bila drugačna od dajatve 16,5 %, ki se je zanje uporabila na podlagi člena 1(3) sporne uredbe.
It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation.
Iz iste določbe namreč izhaja, da je bila dokončna protidampinška dajatev 9,7 % naložena le kitajskemu gospodarskemu subjektu, ki je bil zajet z vzorcem in ki mu je bila odobrena TGO.
It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz točke 38 te sodbe, če bi Komisija ugotovila, da pogoji tržnega gospodarstva prevladujejo tudi za pritožnice, bi se tem – če izračun individualne stopnje dampinga ne bi bil mogoč – prav tako morala odobriti ta zadnja stopnja“ (točka 42 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Zato je razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v tistem delu, ki se nanaša na zadevne vložnike.
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Komisija je oktobra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, sporočila, da je sklenila obnoviti protidampinški postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in preučiti, ali so za vložnike prevladovali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva za obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005.
In October 2013, the Commission, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
S tem obvestilom je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo.
That notice invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
Svet je marca 2014 z Izvedbenim sklepom 2014/149/EU zavrnil predlog Komisije za sprejetje izvedbene uredbe Sveta o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na določeno obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo podjetja Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
In March 2014, the Council, by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Ltd, postopke v zvezi s temi proizvajalci pa je ustavil.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in ki so jim pristojni nacionalni organi povrnili ustrezne uvozne dajatve na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2913/1992 („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli utemeljena pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, zlasti člena 221, ki se uporablja za pobiranje dajatev.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V. („Timberland“) („zadevni uvozniki“), so izpodbijali protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz določene obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama, pri čemer so se pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodišči sklicevali na sodno prakso iz uvodnih izjav od 5 do 7, ta pa so zadevo predložila Sodišču v predhodno odločanje.
Three importers of the product concerned, C & J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe BV (‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Sodišče je 4. februarja 2016 v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, ker Evropska komisija ni preučila zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo („IO“), ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni („sodbi“), kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami iz člena 2(7)(b) in člena 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96.
On 4 February 2016, in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.
Sodišče je v zvezi z zadevo Timberland Europe B.V., C-571/14, 11. aprila 2016 odločilo, da se zadeva izbriše iz registra na zahtevo nacionalnega predložitvenega sodišča.
Regarding Case C-571/14 Timberland Europe, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
Če je akt, ki sta ga instituciji sprejeli v okviru upravnega postopka, kot je protidampinški postopek, razglašen za ničnega, se v skladu s sodbo Sodišča nični akt zamenja z novim aktom, v katerem je odpravljena nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, nadaljuje v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
To pomeni zlasti, da v primeru, ko je za ničnega razglašen akt, ki zaključuje upravni postopek, razglasitev ničnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, kot je začetek protidampinškega postopka.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
Če je za nično razglašena uredba o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, to pomeni, da po razglasitvi ničnosti protidampinški postopek še vedno ni zaključen, saj je bil akt, ki je zaključil protidampinški postopek, odstranjen iz pravnega reda Unije, razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
In a situation where a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that, subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Razen tega, da instituciji nista preučili zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, vse druge ugotovitve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
Apart from the fact that the institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku postopka.
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
Zato se je Komisija odločila, da bo ta protidampinški postopek obnovila v skladu s sodbo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in preučila, ali so za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike prevladali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva v obdobju med 1. aprilom 2004 in 31. marcem 2005, tj. obdobju preiskave („obdobje preiskave“).
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period (‘investigation period’).
Komisija je v primerih, v katerih je bilo to potrebno, preučila tudi, ali so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki izpolnjevali pogoje za IO v skladu s členom 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“).
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Clark in Puma določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz LRK, ki jo proizvaja trinajst kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by 13 Chinese exporting producers that have submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Clark, Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama, ki jo proizvajajo nekateri vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by certain Vietnamese exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1731 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvaja družba General Footwear Ltd, ter določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama, ki jo proizvajata družbi Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd in Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd“), ki so predložile zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bile vzorčene.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by General Footwear Ltd and certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Diamond Vietnam Co.
Veljavnost izvedbenih uredb (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647 in (EU) 2016/1731 sta družbi Puma in Timberland izpodbijali na Splošnem sodišču v zadevah Puma in drugi proti Komisiji, T-781/16, in Timberland Europe proti Komisiji, T-782/16.
Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Poleg tega je tudi družba Clark na Splošnem sodišču izpodbijala veljavnost Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395 v zadevah C & J Clark International proti Komisiji, T-790/16, in C & J Clark International proti Komisiji, T-861/16.
Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co.
V zvezi z izvajanjem sodbe v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, navedene v uvodni izjavi 12, je Komisija sprejela Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/223.
Ltd’) that submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
V členu 1 navedene uredbe je Komisija nacionalnim carinskim organom naročila, naj ji pošljejo vse zahtevke za povračilo dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, plačanih za uvoz obutve s poreklom iz Kitajske in Vietnama, ki so jih vložili uvozniki na podlagi člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in ki temeljijo na dejstvu, da je nevzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik v preiskavi, zaradi katere so bile z Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 uvedene dokončne dajatve („prvotna preiskava“), zahteval TGO ali IO.
The validity of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731 has been challenged by Puma and Timberland at the General Court in Cases T-781/16 Puma and Others v Commission and T-782/16 Timberland Europe v Commission.
Komisija oceni zadevni zahtevek za TGO ali IO in ponovno uvede ustrezno stopnjo dajatve.
Furthermore, the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 has also been challenged at the General Court by Clark in Cases T-790/16 C & J Clark International v Commission and T-861/16 C & J Clark International v Commission.
Na podlagi tega bi morali nacionalni carinski organi naknadno sprejeti odločitev glede zahtevka za povračilo in odpust protidampinških dajatev.
In view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE mentioned above in recital (12), the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
Veljavnost Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 je predmet predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je 9. maja 2016 vložilo finančno sodišče v Düsseldorfu (Finanzgericht Düsseldorf) (zadeva Deichmann, C-256/16).
In Article 1 of that regulation, the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the investigation that lead to the imposition of the definitive measures by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (‘original investigation’).
Navedeni predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Deichmann SE, nemškim uvoznikom obutve, in zadevnim nacionalnim carinskim organom Hauptzollamt Duisburg.
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Spor se nanaša na vračilo protidampinških dajatev, ki jih je družba Deichmann plačala za uvoz obutve, med drugim od svojega kitajskega dobavitelja, tj. družbe Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Ltd, ki je vložila zahtevek za TGO in IO, vendar ni bila vzorčena.
The validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 is subject to a preliminary ruling request lodged by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf on 9 May 2016 (Case C-256/16 Deichmann).
Drugi predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe o veljavnosti Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 je 28. novembra 2016 vložilo prvostopenjsko sodišče Združenega kraljestva (davčni senat) (First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)) (zadeva C & J Clark International, C-612/16).
The above request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute between Deichmann, a German importer of footwear and the relevant national customs authority, the Hauptzollamt Duisburg.
Poleg tega je Komisija po priglasitvi francoskih carinskih organov v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/223 analizirala zahtevke za TGO/IO treh kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, in sicer družb Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co.
The dispute concerns the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid by Deichmann on imports of footwear from, inter alia, its Chinese supplier Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co.
Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd in Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co.
Ltd which lodged an MET and IT claim and was not sampled.
Ltd.