natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission did not accept the interpretation suggested by EBB.
Če bi bil namesto tega po mnenju pritožbenega organa (kot je trdil EBB) glavni razlog za ugotovitev, da ukrepi EU niso skladni s pravili STO, nezadostna utemeljitev Komisije v prvotni uredbi, bi pritožbeni organ to izrecno navedel.
First, the AB statement in paragraph 6.55 referred to above is not a mere quotation of the Commission's own conclusions.
Vendar tega nista navedla ne pritožbeni organ ne odbor.
On the contrary, it forms an integral part of the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA in paragraph 6.56.
Nasprotno, besedna zveza „sama po sebi“ se je verjetno uporabila, da se pojasni, da delovanje argentinskega sistema izvoznih davkov „kot tako“ ne more sprožiti prilagoditve stroškov v skladu s členom 2.2.1.1 protidampinškega sporazuma STO ne glede na to, kako dobro so utemeljeni ali dokumentirani njegovi izkrivljajoči učinki.
The Appellate Body expressly agreed with the Panel that this provision did not provide a sufficient basis for the Commission's conclusion to disregard the recorded costs of Argentine biodiesel producers because domestic prices of soybeans in Argentina were lower than international prices due to the Argentine export tax system.
Tretjič, Komisija se ni strinjala z EBB, da naj bi dejstvo, da je pritožbeni organ trditev glede referenčnih vrednosti obravnaval v odstavkih 6.58 do 6.83, kazalo na to, da naj bi argentinski sistem izvoznih davkov dejansko lahko bila zadostna podlaga, da se evidentirani stroški surovin ne upoštevajo.
The AB repeated this normative finding verbatim in the next paragraph 6.56 under the heading ‘Conclusions’.
Kot je mogoče razbrati iz naslova pred odstavkom 6.58, je pritožbeni organ v njem obravnaval drugo trditev iz Argentine v skladu s členom 2.2 protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
Second, the phrase ‘was not, in itself, a sufficient basis’ implies, to the Commission's understanding, that the mere existence of the export tax system was not a sufficient basis to justify a cost adjustment as made in the original investigation.
Komisija se je nato obrnila na drugo trditev EBB, in sicer da je odstavek 6.41 poročila pritožbenega organa zagotovil jasen signal, da stroškov, evidentiranih v računovodskih evidencah družbe, ni treba upoštevati, če temeljijo na praksah, ki vplivajo na zanesljivost sporočenih stroškov.
If instead (as argued by EBB) the main reason for the Appellate Body to find a WTO inconsistency of the EU measures was the insufficient reasoning of the Commission in the original Regulation, it would have expressly said so.
EBB je opozoril tudi na dejstvo, da je pritožbeni organ menil, da mora to utemeljitev vključiti v svoje poročilo, medtem ko jo je odbor omenil le v opombi.
However, nothing of the kind was stated the Appellate Body and the Panel.
To naj bi po mnenju EBB pomenilo, da je pritožbeni organ želel odpraviti preveč restriktivno razlago člena 2.2.1.1 protidampinškega sporazuma STO in dati jasen signal, da je v navedenem okviru prilagoditev stroškov še naprej možna.
Rather, the wording ‘in itself’ was likely used to make clear that the operation of the export tax system in Argentina cannot ‘as such’ trigger a cost adjustment under Article 2.2.1.1 ADA however well-reasoned or documented its distortive effects may be.
V odstavku 6.41 je pritožbeni organ obravnaval trditev EU, da se zdi, da poročilo odbora kaže na to, da bi preiskovalni organ moral sprejeti kakršne koli stroške, evidentirane v računovodskih evidencah družbe, dokler bi ti odražali dejanske stroške, „ne glede na to, kako nerazumni bi bili ti stroški v primerjavi s približkom ali referenčno vrednostjo v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji“.
Third, the Commission disagreed with EBB's inference that the fact that the Appellate Body addressed the claim regarding benchmarks in paragraphs 6.58 to 6.83 was an indication that the export tax system in Argentina could indeed have been a sufficient basis to disregard the recorded costs for raw material.
Pritožbeni organ je to razlago zavrnil in opozoril, da je odbor dejansko sprejel, da preiskovalni organ lahko preuči zanesljivost in točnost vnosov v evidencah proizvajalcev.
As can be drawn from the heading preceding paragraph 6.58, the Appellate Body therein addressed a different claim from Argentina under Article 2.2 of the ADA.
Preiskovalni organ torej lahko ugotovi, „ali so bili zajeti vsi nastali stroški, ali so bili nastali stroški ocenjeni previsoko ali prenizko ter ali so transakcije, ki niso opravljene po tržni ceni, ali druge prakse vplivale na zanesljivost sporočenih stroškov“.
The Commission then turned to the second claim of the EBB, namely that paragraph 6.41 of the Appellate Body report provided a clear signal that costs recorded in the records of a company can be disregarded when they are based on practices which affect the reliability of the reported costs.
Komisija se je strinjala z EBB, da je pritožbeni organ potrdil odločitev odbora, da se evidentirani stroški lahko zavržejo, če preiskovalni organ ugotovi transakcije, ki niso opravljene po tržni ceni, ali druge prakse, ki so vplivale na njihovo zanesljivost.
The EBB also referred to the fact that while the Panel had presented this reasoning in a footnote only, the Appellate Body found it necessary to include it in the body of its report.
Prav tako se ji ne zdi nenavadno, da je pritožbeni organ trditev obravnaval v besedilu svoje odločitve in ne v opombi, kot je to storil odbor.
This would indicate, according to EBB, that the Appellate Body wanted to dispel an overly restrictive interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA and give a clear signal that a cost adjustment remains possible in that context.
Vendar niti odbor niti pritožbeni organ ni sprejel nobene ugotovitve ali domneve, da bi argentinski sistem izvoznih davkov lahko spadal pod to izjemo v okviru prakse, ki vpliva na zanesljivost podatkov.
In paragraph 6.41 the Appellate Body addressed the claim from the EU that the Panel report seemed to suggest that an investigating authority would have to accept any cost reported in a company's record as long as it accurately reflected the costs actually incurred ‘no matter how unreasonable such cost would be compared to a proxy or benchmark consistent with normal market conditions’.
Če bi odbor ali pritožbeni organ menil, da bi se argentinski sistem izvoznih davkov lahko obravnaval kot druga praksa, ki vpliva na zanesljivost, bi to jasno navedel, pri čemer ne bi sprejel ugotovitve, da ukrepi EU niso skladni s pravili STO.
It rejected that reading and recalled that the Panel had actually accepted that the investigating authority can examine the reliability and accuracy recorded in the records of the producers.
Komisija je zato vztrajala pri svoji razlagi poročil, da EU pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti biodizla v Argentini na podlagi izkrivljanj, ki izhajajo iz samega obstoja argentinskega sistema izvoznih davkov, ne bi mogla zanemariti dejansko nastalih in točno evidentiranih stroškov.
The investigating authority could thus determine ‘whether all costs incurred are captured; whether the costs incurred have been over- or understated; and whether non-arms-length transactions or other practices affect the reliability of the reported costs’.
Komisija je nato obravnavala trditve, ki jih je podal EBB, po razkritju pa tudi FEDIOL, ki je dobavitelj za industrijo biodizla Unije, in sicer da bi Komisija morala preučiti druge dokaze za prilagoditev stroškov za izravnavo izkrivljajočih učinkov diferenciranih izvoznih davkov na stroške proizvodnje biodizla v Argentini.
The Commission agreed with EBB that the Appellate Body had upheld the Panel's ruling that recorded costs could be discarded when the investigating authority has found non-arms-length transactions or other practices affecting their reliability.
Pri tem je navedla, da zbiranje drugih dokazov za prilagoditev stroškov za izravnavo izkrivljajočih učinkov diferenciranih izvoznih davkov ni bil namen te preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
It also found it normal that the Appellate Body addressed a claim in the body of its ruling rather than in a footnote, as the Panel had done.
V vsakem primeru je Komisija navedla, da dokazov iz Heffleyjeve študije iz naslednjih razlogov ni mogoče šteti za dovolj zanesljivo podlago za novo prilagoditev stroškov.
However, neither the Panel nor the Appellate Body made any findings or suggestions that the export tax system in Argentina could fall under this exception of a practice affecting reliability.
Komisija ni mogla odpraviti te neskladnosti brez podatkov za obdobje od julija 2011 do septembra 2011.
If the Panel or Appellate Body had considered that the Argentine export tax system could have qualified as another practice affecting reliability, they would have made this point clear and refrained from finding a WTO inconsistency of the EU measures.
Drugič, v študiji so bili stroški proizvodnje v Združenih državah ocenjeni na podlagi cene soje na ameriškem trgu.
The Commission therefore maintained its interpretation of the Reports that the EU could not disregard the costs actually incurred and accurately recorded when constructing the normal value of biodiesel in Argentina on the basis of distortions stemming from the mere existence of the Argentina export tax system.
Ta gospodarska metoda temelji na predpostavkah, vendar ne zagotavlja zanesljivih podatkov o dejanskih stroških proizvodnje ameriškega biodizla.
In this respect, it noted that collecting alternative evidence for cost adjustments to counteract the distortive effects of the DET was not the purpose of the present review investigation.
Tretjič, pri uporabi „povprečne“ argentinske izvozne cene se ne upošteva dejstvo, da so lahko izvozne cene v Unijo dejansko višje od povprečja.
In any case, the Commission noted that the evidence contained in the Heffley Study could not be regarded as a sufficiently solid basis for a new cost adjustment, for the following reasons.
Dejansko je med obdobjem prvotne preiskave izvozna cena argentinskega biodizla v EU znašala 967 EUR/metrično tono, kar je po takratnih menjalnih tečajih enako 1294 USD/metrično tono, kot je evidentirano v spisu.
First, the IP covered July 2011-June 2012, while the Heffley Study's specific analysis deals with October 2011 to September 2012.
Vendar je bila v študiji za to obdobje uporabljena povprečna izvozna cena v višini 1071 USD/metrično tono.
There is, consequently, only a partial overlap of the periods considered, making it questionable whether the study's findings can be translated to the underlying investigation without adjustments.
Iz tega je razvidno, da domnevna korist od diferenciranih izvoznih davkov ni mogla izhajati neposredno iz izvoznih cen v Unijo.
The Commission was unable to correct this mismatch without data for the period July-September 2011.
Četrtič, v študiji se brez ustreznih podpornih dokazov zgolj predpostavlja, da so bili (nizki) stroški proizvodnje na argentinskem domačem trgu v obravnavanem obdobju izključno posledica diferenciranih izvoznih davkov.
Second, the study estimated the cost of production in the US from the price of soybeans on the US market.
Študija dejansko ne obravnava nobenega drugega dejavnika primerjalne prednosti, zaradi katerega bi lahko bila proizvodnja biodizla v Argentini cenejša kot v Združenih državah.
This economic method is based on assumptions without, however, providing reliable of actual cost of production of US biodiesel.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da ni mogla natančno nadomestiti stroškov v evidencah argentinskih proizvajalcev biodizla z referenčno vrednostjo, predlagano v Heffleyjevi študiji.
Even if one could rely on assumptions only, the idea that the costs of making biodiesel from crude soybean oil would be identical in the US and Argentina is not substantiated.
EBB je po revidiranem razkritju pojasnil, da je bil namen študije le dokazati, kako bi lahko Komisija na primer ocenila in količinsko opredelila obseg izkrivljanja (nezanesljivosti) zaradi sistema izvoznih davkov, in ne nadomestiti analize Komisije, ki temelji na njenih lastnih preverjenih podatkih, zbranih v prvotni preiskavi.
Third, using an ‘average’ Argentinian export price overlooks the fact that the export price to the Union may be actually higher than the average.
EBB je prav tako predložil revidirano študijo z referenčnimi podatki, ki so se popolnoma ujemali z obdobjem prvotne preiskave, ki je pokazalo zelo podoben rezultat, tj. izkrivljanje domačih cen soje v višini približno 27 %.
Indeed, during the IP of the original investigation, the export price of Argentine biodiesel to the EU stood at 967 EUR/MT, which equals 1294 USD/MT, using the exchange rates of the time, as recorded in the file.
EBB je poleg tega izpodbijal razumevanje Komisije, da je študija temeljila na stroških proizvodnje v ZDA.
The study, though, used for this period an average export price of 1071 USD/MT.
Nasprotno, temeljila je na oceni stroškov proizvodnje biodizla v Argentini.
This shows that the conclusion that the alleged benefit from the DET could not derive directly from the export prices to the Union.
Poleg tega je kritika Komisije, da se je študija oprla na povprečno izvozno ceno, napačna, saj ta cena sama po sebi ni relevantna za izračun izkrivljanja stroškov biodizla v Argentini, ki ga povzroča sistem izvoznih davkov.
Fourth, the study simply assumes, without adequate evidence to substantiate it, that the (low) cost of production on the Argentine domestic market during the period considered was exclusively caused by the DET.
Nazadnje je EBB trdil, da razlike v ceni v višini približno 30 % ni mogoče pojasniti s primerjalnimi prednostmi in da je ob odsotnosti nasprotnih dokazov argentinski sistem izvoznih davkov edina razumna razlaga za navedeno razliko.
Indeed, the study does not consider other factors of comparative advantage which might make the production of biodiesel in Argentina cheaper than in the United States.
Komisija je preučila razlage in pojasnila, ki jih je predložil EBB.
The Commission thus concluded that it was unable to replace accurately the recorded cost in the records of Argentinian biodiesel producers by the benchmark suggested in the Heffley study.
Sprejela je, da je revidirana študija pokazala izkrivljanje domačih cen soje v obdobju preiskave za približno 27 %.
Following the revised disclosure, EBB clarified that the purpose of the study was only to demonstrate how the Commission, as an example, could appreciate and quantify the extent of distortion (unreliability) caused by the Argentina export tax system and not to substitute or replace an analysis by the Commission based on its own verified data collected during the original investigation.
Vendar še vedno ni bila prepričana glede ostalih treh točk.
EBB also submitted a revised study with reference data that fully corresponded to the original investigation period which showed a very similar result, i.e. a distortion of domestic prices for soybeans at around 27 %.
EBB je sam priznal, da je ocena stroškov predelave za proizvajalca v Argentini temeljila na treh analizah, in sicer na analizi povprečnih stroškov in cen za Združene države in Argentino v šestih letih, na analizi enakih podatkov za Združene države in Argentino v enem letu ter na analizi podatkov za Argentino v enem letu, pri čemer je bila argentinska izvozna cena uporabljena kot približek za svetovno ceno.
EBB further contested the Commission's understanding that the study relied on cost of production in the US.
Jasno je, da je stanje v Združenih državah predstavljalo zunanjo referenčno vrednost, ki se je uporabila za ugotavljanje, kakšni bi bili stroški v Argentini, če ne bi bilo izkrivljanj zaradi izvoznega davka.
On the contrary, the study relied on an estimated cost of production of biodiesel in Argentina.
Poleg tega ni bilo nobenega utemeljenega razloga, zakaj bi se pri poskusu ugotavljanja obstoja prednosti, ki bi jo argentinski proizvajalec biodizla lahko imel zaradi sistema diferenciranih izvoznih davkov, prezrle argentinske izvozne cene v Evropo.
Moreover, the Commission's criticism of the study for relying on an average export price is misplaced since that price, in itself, is irrelevant for calculating the distortion to biodiesel costs in Argentina that is caused by the export tax system.
Komisija poleg tega nikoli ni izpodbijala, da je sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov umetno zniževal vhodne stroške argentinskih proizvajalcev biodizla, temveč je pod vprašaj postavila le predpostavko, v skladu s katero je bil sistem diferenciranih izvoznih davkov edini razlog za tako velike prednosti v višini približno 30 %.
Finally, the EBB contends that any alleged comparative advantages cannot explain a price difference of around 30 % and, absent any evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable explanation for such a gap is the system of export taxes in Argentina.
Ponovno izračunane stopnje dampinga
The Commission examined the explanations and clarifications provided by EBB.
Po razkritju so nekateri argentinski proizvajalci izvozniki predložili pripombe za posamezne družbe glede domnevnih napak pri izračunih dampinga.
The Commission accepted that the revised study showed distortion of domestic soybean prices during the investigation period of around 27 %.
Komisija je po potrebi te napake popravila ter ustrezno spremenila stopnje dampinga in dajatve.
However, it remained unconvinced by the other three points.
Glede na ugotovitve in priporočila v poročilih STO so spremenjene stopnje dajatve za vse argentinske izvoznike, izražene kot cena CIF meja Unije brez plačane carinske dajatve, naslednje:
As EBB itself acknowledged, the estimated processing cost for a producer in Argentina was based on three analyses: one based on six years average cost and price data for the United States and Argentina; one based on one year of the same data of the United States and Argentina; and one based on one year's data for Argentina, with the Argentine export price as a proxy for the world price.
„Država
Clearly, the situation in the United States constituted an out-of-country benchmark to find out what the costs in Argentina would be absent the distortions from the export tax.
Družba
Moreover, there was no good reason why Argentine export prices to Europe should be ignored when trying to establish the advantage that an Argentine biodiesel producer may have had as a result of the DET.
Stopnja dampinga
In addition, the Commission has never contested that the DET was artificially lowering the input costs for Argentine biodiesel producers, but only took issue with the assumption that the DET was the only cause for such a huge benefit of around 30 %.
Druge sodelujoče družbe
Recalculated dumping margins
Vse druge družbe
Following disclosure some Argentine exporting producers made company-specific comments regarding alleged mistakes in dumping calculations.
REVIDIRANE UGOTOVITVE O ŠKODI NA PODLAGI POROČIL
Where appropriate, the Commission corrected these errors and revised the dumping margins and duties accordingly.
V poročilih je bilo med drugim ugotovljeno, da EU pri proučitvi učinka dampinškega uvoza na domačo industrijo ni ravnala v skladu s členom 3.1 in 3.4 protidampinškega sporazuma STO, kolikor se nanaša na proizvodno zmogljivost in izkoriščenost zmogljivosti.
Company
Revidirani podatki so se nanašali na „neizkoriščeno zmogljivost“.
Dumping margin
Obenem je odbor navedel, da revidirani podatki niso imeli pomembne vloge pri sklepu organov EU iz dokončne uredbe v zvezi s presežno zmogljivostjo kot „drugim dejavnikom“, ki je povzročil škodo (kar je potrjeno v odstavku 6.174 poročila pritožbenega organa).
Argentina
Nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki in združenje argentinskih izvoznikov biodizla (CARBIO) so trdili, da je pojem „neizkoriščena zmogljivost“, kot je bil pojasnjen v dokončni uredbi, v tej industriji brez pomena.
Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., Buenos Aires; Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos S.A.F.I.C.I. y A., Bahia Blanca; Vicentin S.A.I.C., Avellaneda
Zmogljivost je bodisi obstajala bodisi ni.
Other cooperating companies
Po mnenju uvoznika Gunvor in združenja CARBIO je domača industrija utrpela škodo zaradi strukturne presežne zmogljivosti industrije, ki je nastala zaradi nepotrebnih povečanj proizvodne zmogljivosti kljub nizkim stopnjam izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti, in ne zaradi same stopnje izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti.
All other companies
Združenje CARBIO ter argentinski in indonezijski proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili še, da mora Komisija ponovno proučiti proizvodno zmogljivost in izkoriščenost zmogljivosti na podlagi „pozitivnih dokazov“.
REVISED INJURY FINDINGS BASED ON THE REPORTS
Njena proučitev bi morala pomeniti „objektivno proučitev“ teh dejavnikov.
In the Reports, it was found, inter alia, that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the ADA in its examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry, insofar as it relates to production capacity and capacity utilisation.
Komisija je to vprašanje obravnavala v oddelkih 6.1 do 6.4 v nadaljevanju.
The Reports did not, however, invalidate the conclusion that the Union Industry suffered material injury during the period considered.
Izpolnjen vprašalnik in preverjanje
The Panel found that the EU authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the ADA by accepting revised data submitted by the EU domestic industry at a late stage of the investigation without assuring themselves of its accuracy and reliability (paragraph 7.395 of the Panel report).
Komisija je EBB poslala vprašalnik, s katerim je zahtevala pojasnila glede vprašanj, (i) katera metodologija je bila uporabljena za izračun proizvodne zmogljivosti in izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti industrije Unije v obravnavanem obdobju ter (ii) zakaj so bili ti podatki med prvotno preiskavo revidirani in na kateri podlagi so bili pridobljeni novi podatki.
The revised data concerned ‘idle capacity’.
Komisija je od EBB zahtevala tudi, naj pojasni, kako razume pojem „neizkoriščena zmogljivost“, zakaj bi ga bilo po njegovem mnenju treba izvzeti iz skupne proizvodne zmogljivosti industrije Unije za obravnavano obdobje in kako je bila neizkoriščena zmogljivost izračunana za nečlanice EBB.
At the same time the Panel stated that the revised data did not have a significant role in the EU authorities' conclusion in the definitive Regulation on overcapacity as an ‘other factor’ causing injury (confirmed in paragraph 6.174 of the Appellate Body report).
Komisija je prejela izpolnjen vprašalnik, ga analizirala in 26. aprila 2017 opravila preveritveni obisk v prostorih EBB.
Some exporting producers and CARBIO, the Argentine biodiesel exporters association, argued that the concept of ‘idle capacity’, as it was explained in the definitive Regulation, was rather meaningless in this industry.
Na zahtevo Komisije je EBB za preveritveni obisk pripravil vsa dokazila in delovne liste, ki jih je uporabil za izpolnjevanje vprašalnika, zlasti tiste, iz katerih je razvidna povezava med predloženimi informacijami ter evidencami o vodenju in računovodskimi evidencami za preverjanje na kraju samem, ki ga opravi Komisija.
Either capacity existed or it did not.
Komisija je preverila dokazila, navzkrižno preverila sporočene podatke za obravnavano obdobje pri viru ter je lahko informacije iz evidenc o vodenju in računovodskih evidenc uskladila z revidiranimi podatki, ki so bili predloženi v prvotni preiskavi v zvezi s proizvodno zmogljivostjo in izkoriščenostjo zmogljivosti ter ki so zajemali obdobje od 1. januarja 2009 do konca obdobja preiskave.
For the importer Gunvor and CARBIO, it was the structural overcapacity of the industry resulting from unwarranted increases in production capacity, despite low capacity utilization rates, and not the capacity utilization rate itself, that was the cause of injury to the domestic industry.
Dokumenti vsebujejo zaupne podatke o družbi in jih ni mogoče razkriti.
CARBIO, Argentinian and Indonesian exporting producers further submitted that the Commission was required to re-examine production capacity and capacity utilization on the basis of ‘positive evidence’.
Gunvor in združenje CARBIO sta trdila, da vprašalnik, ki ga je Komisija naslovila na EBB, ni zadostoval za izpolnitev zahtev iz člena 3.1 in 3.4 protidampinškega sporazuma STO.