natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The present Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as certain exporting producers from the PRC are concerned.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi IO morala biti odobrena kitajskemu proizvajalcu izvozniku, za katerega je bila zavrnjena TGO, pri čemer je za njegov uvoz veljala protidampinška dajatev, plačana s strani enega od dveh zadevnih uvoznikov, bi bilo zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku treba priznati individualno stopnjo dajatve, povračilo dajatev pa bi bilo treba po potrebi omejiti na znesek, ki bi ustrezal razliki med plačanimi dajatvami in individualno dajatvijo, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation, which were not declared invalid by the Court of Justice, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into the present Regulation.
Nasprotno, če bi analiza zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo TGO in IO treba zavrniti, povračila protidampinških dajatev ni mogoče odobriti.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (12), je Sodišče izpodbijano uredbo in Uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, in sicer med drugim glede uvoza nekatere obutve trinajstih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, tj. Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd., Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co.
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the Chinese exporting producers of Clark and Puma, which submitted MET and/or IT requests in that investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the two importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of their Chinese suppliers which requested MET and/or IT.
Ltd., Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co.
Should the analysis reveal that MET was to be granted to the Chinese exporting producer whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the two importers concerned, the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, namely 16,5 %, and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that has obtained MET, i.e. Golden Step, namely 9,7 %.
Ltd., Wei Hao Shoe Co.
Should the analysis reveal that IT was to be granted to the Chinese exporting producer for which MET was rejected, but whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the two importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producer concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, and the individual duty calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Ltd., Wei Hua Shoe Co.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
Ltd., Win Profile Industries Ltd („zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki“), v Unijo in uvoza družb Clark in Puma, saj Komisija ni proučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih med drugim predložili proizvajalci izvozniki v LRK.
As explained in recital 12, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, inter alia, with regard to exports of certain footwear from 13 Chinese exporting producers, i.e. Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co.
Komisija je zato v prvi fazi proučila zahtevke za TGO in IO teh trinajstih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi določila stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za njihov izvoz.
Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co.
Ocena je pokazala, da predložene informacije niso ustrezno dokazale, da so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki delovali v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva ali da so izpolnjevali pogoje za individualno obravnavo (za podrobno razlago glej uvodno izjavo (32) in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co.
Ocena zahtevkov za TGO
Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co.
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO.
Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co.
Prvi pododstavek člena 2(7)(c) v ta namen določa, da mora zahtevek, ki ga tak proizvajalec predloži, vsebovati zadostne dokaze, kot so opredeljeni v tej določbi, da deluje v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva.
Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co.
Nasprotno, instituciji Unije morata presoditi, 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 navedena obravnava, sodišče Unije pa mora preveriti, ali je ta presoja očitno napačna (točka 32 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 24 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
Ltd and Win Profile Industries Ltd (‘the exporting producers concerned’) to the Union and imported by Clark and Puma, in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by, inter alia, the exporting producers in the PRC.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe mora biti izpolnjenih vseh pet meril iz tega člena, da se proizvajalcu izvozniku lahko odobri TGO.
The Commission has therefore examined in a first step the MET and IT claims of these 13 exporting producers in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
The assessment showed that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals 32 and following).
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merili 1 (poslovne odločitve) in 3 (sredstva in „prenos“).
Assessment of the MET claims
Natančneje, kar zadeva merilo 1, zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso predložili bistvenih in celovitih informacij (npr. dokazov o strukturi in kapitalu družbe, dokazov o domači prodaji, dokazov o plačilu zaposlenih itd.), ki bi dokazovale, da so se njihove poslovne odločitve sprejemale v skladu s tržnimi razmerami in brez večjega vmešavanja države.
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.
V zvezi z merilom 3 zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki prav tako niso zagotovili popolnih in celovitih informacij (npr. dokazila o sredstvih v lasti podjetja in pravici do uporabe zemljišč), ki bi dokazovale, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
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.
Poleg tega štiri družbe (družbe A, I, K, M) niso izpolnile merila 2 (računovodstvo), saj niso predložile jasnega seznama osnovnih računovodskih evidenc.
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.
Za preostalih devet družb (družbe B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J in L) se merilo 2 (računovodstvo) ni ocenjevalo, in sicer iz razloga, navedenega v uvodni izjavi (32).
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 judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Iz istega razloga, navedenega v uvodni izjavi (22), se za nobenega od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov nista ocenjevali merili 4 (stečajno pravo in pravo lastninskih razmerij) in 5 (pretvorbe glede menjalnega tečaja).
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.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da se nobenemu od trinajstih zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne odobri TGO, in o tem ustrezno obvestila zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike, ki so bili pozvani, naj predložijo pripombe.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Komisija od nobenega od trinajstih zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni prejela pripomb.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criteria 1 (Business decisions) and 3 (Assets and ‘Carry-over’).
Zato nobeden od trinajstih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne izpolnjuje vseh pogojev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zaradi česar se TGO zanje ne odobri.
More specifically, regarding criterion 1 the exporting producers concerned failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence concerning domestic sales, evidence concerning the remuneration of the employees, etc.) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Opozoriti je treba, da bi bilo treba po mnenju Sodišča zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v primeru, če bi instituciji Unije ugotovili, da zanje prevladujejo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva, odobriti enako stopnjo kot družbi, ki je bila zajeta z vzorcem in ki ji je bila odobrena TGO.
Regarding criterion 3, the exporting producers concerned equally failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the assets owned by the company and the land use right) to demonstrate that no distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system.
Ker pa TGO na podlagi ugotovitev ponovno začete preiskave ni bila odobrena nobenemu zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku, nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne bi smel imeti koristi od individualne stopnje dajatve vzorčenega podjetja, ki mu je bila odobrena TGO.
In addition, as concerns criterion 2 (Accounting), four companies (Companies A, I, K, M) did not meet this criterion as they did not submit a clear set of basic accounting records.
Ocena zahtevkov za IO
For the remaining nine companies (Companies B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, L) criterion 2 (Accounting) was not assessed for the reason set out in recital 32.
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 same reason set out in recital 22, for none of the exporting producers concerned criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) were assessed.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (31), 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 13 Chinese 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 13 Chinese 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 13 Chinese 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 presoditi, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni izvoznik, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri IO.
It is recalled that the Court of Justice held that if the Union Institutions found that the market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned, they ought to have benefited from the same rate as the company in the sample that was granted MET.
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.
However, since MET is denied for all exporting producers concerned as a result of the findings in the resumed investigation, none of the exporting producers concerned should benefit from the individual duty rate of the sampled company that was granted MET.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.
Assessment of the IT claims
Uporablja se naslednjih pet meril:
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.
izvozniki lahko v primeru podjetij ali skupnih podjetij, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobičke v domovino;
As mentioned in recital 31 it is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT under Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
izvozne cene ter obseg in pogoji prodaje so svobodno določeni;
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
večina deležev je v lasti zasebnikov; državni uradniki, ki se pojavljajo v upravnem odboru ali na ključnih upravljavskih položajih, morajo biti v manjšini ali pa je treba dokazati, da je podjetje kljub temu dovolj neodvisno od vmešavanja države;
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.
država se ne vmešava toliko, da bi dovoljevala izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.
In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, exporters should demonstrate on the basis of a properly substantiated claim that all five criteria listed in this Article are met so that they can be granted IT.
Vseh trinajst kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so zahtevali TGO, je zahtevalo tudi IO, v primeru da jim TGO ne bi bila odobrena.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Večina zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (podjetja A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L in M) ni mogla dokazati, da izpolnjujejo merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine so svobodno določene).
The five criteria are the following:
Natančneje, nekaterim zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom (podjetja E, G, H, J, K in L) statut podjetja predpisuje omejitev proizvodnje, zato niso mogli dokazati, da se poslovne odločitve, kot so na primer izvozne količine, sprejemajo kot odziv na tržne signale, ki odražajo ponudbo in povpraševanje.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
Druga (podjetja A, B in M) niso prodajala na domačem trgu in v zvezi s tem niso predložila dodatnih pojasnil, s čimer niso dokazala, da to ni posledica posredovanja države.
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
Preostali proizvajalci izvozniki (podjetja C, D in I) niso predložili bistvene in celovite dokumentacije ter tako niso dokazali, da je merilo 2 izpolnjeno.
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;
V zvezi z merilom 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in deleži podjetja so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države) deset kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (podjetja B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) ni predložilo bistvene in celovite dokumentacije (zlasti glede tega, kako je podjetje pridobilo premoženje, kdo je lastnik premoženja in pravic do rabe zemljišč itn.), s čimer niso dokazali, da ni bilo vmešavanja države in da izpolnjujejo to merilo.
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
Poleg tega en proizvajalec izvoznik (podjetje C) ni izpolnjeval merila 1 (vračanje kapitala v domovino), saj je preiskava razkrila omejitve pri vračanju kapitala v domovino zaradi vmešavanja države.
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
Poleg tega isti proizvajalec izvoznik (podjetje C) ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 5 (država se ne vmešava toliko, da bi dovoljevala izogibanje ukrepom), saj ni zagotovil podatkov o dveh povezanih družbah s sedežem na Kitajskem, s čimer so manjkali bistveni dokumenti, ki bi dokazovali, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
All 13 Chinese exporting producers that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Zato nobeden od trinajstih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval pogojev iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, zaradi česar se IO zanje ni odobrila.
The majority of exporting producers concerned (Companies A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) were not able to demonstrate that they met criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined).
Zato bi bilo za te proizvajalce izvoznike treba uvesti preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki velja za Ljudsko republiko Kitajsko, za obdobje uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006.
More specifically, for certain exporting producers concerned (Companies E, G, H, J, K, L) the Articles of Association stipulated a limitation in output and therefore they failed to demonstrate that business decisions, such as export quantities are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Na podlagi nezakonitosti, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, ni pravne podlage za popolno oprostitev plačila protidampinške dajatve za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Others (Companies A, B, M) did not sell on the domestic market and provided no further explanations so that they have not demonstrated that this was not due to State intervention.
Z novim aktom, ki odpravlja nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, je treba torej samo ponovno oceniti veljavno stopnjo protidampinške dajatve in ne samih ukrepov.
The remaining exporting producers (Companies C, D, I) failed to provide essential and complete documentation and therefore they have not demonstrated that criterion 2 was met.
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 Uredbi (EU) št. 1294/2009, spremembe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 388/2008 niso potrebne.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), 10 Chinese exporting producers (Companies B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) failed to submit essential and complete documentation (in particular on how the company acquired the assets, who owned the assets and the land use rights, etc.) and did therefore not demonstrate that there was no State interference and they therefore failed to demonstrate that they met this criterion.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
In addition, one exporting producer (Company C) failed to meet criterion 1 (Capital repatriation) since the investigation revealed limitations for capital repatriation due to State interference.
C. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
Furthermore, the same exporting producer (Company C) failed to demonstrate that it met criterion 5 (No state interference to permit circumvention of measures) since no information was provided concerning two related companies located in China and therefore essential documentation was missing to demonstrate that this criterion was met.
Zgoraj navedene ugotovitve in sklepi so bili razkriti zainteresiranim stranem, ki jim je bil določen rok za pripombe.
Therefore, none of the 13 Chinese exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was, as a result, denied to all of them.
Združenje FESI, ki predstavlja uvoznike, vključno s podjetji Puma in Timberland, Clark in drugi uvoznik ter en proizvajalec izvoznik, pri katerem zahtevek za TGO/IO ni bil predmet trenutne obravnave, so se oglasili in predložili pripombe.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to the PRC should therefore be imposed for these exporting producers for the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Domnevne nepravilnosti v postopku
The period of application of that Regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
FESI in en uvoznik sta trdila, da je pri sedanjem izvajanju prišlo do številnih kršitev postopka.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
Opozorila sta na dejstvo, da so bili zahtevki za TGO zadevnih kitajskih 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 dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz obutve v višini 16,5 %.
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 or to the duty of the company in the sample that was granted MET.
Te ocene bi bile torej opravljene brez pravne podlage in so predhodno posegale v prihajajočo sodbo Sodišča.
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.
Vendar pa se Komisija ne strinja z zgornjo izjavo, saj je samo pripravljala izvajanje morebitne prihodnje sodbe.
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.
Takšna priprava zagotavlja dobro vodenje iz naslednjih razlogov: Prvič, nesporno je, da bi Komisija morala proučiti zahtevke za TGO/IO.
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 Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Edino sporno vprašanje, ki je še bilo v postopku pred Sodiščem, je bilo, ali se lahko nepovezani uvozniki, kot so Clark, Puma in Timberland, sklicujejo na to nezakonitost.
That Regulation remains valid.
Ker gre za binarno odločitev da/ne, se Komisija lahko izjemno dobro pripravi na morebitno negativno sodbo o tem vprašanju.