natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in Komisijo zaprosijo za zaslišanje v roku iz obvestila.
Following the initial comments received, all other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation were contacted and given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
Po prejetju prvotnih pripomb je bil z vsemi drugimi zainteresiranimi stranmi, za katere je bilo iz prvotne preiskave znano, da jih to zadeva, vzpostavljen stik, pri čemer jim je bila dana možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in Komisijo zaprosijo za zaslišanje.
All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer.
Vsem stranem, ki so to zahtevale, je bilo odobreno zaslišanje pri službah Komisije in/ali pooblaščencu za zaslišanje.
The Commission received submissions on various aspects of the investigation from Jinan Meide, other Chinese exporting producers, one Thai exporting producer, five Union producers and eight unrelated importers.
Komisija je pripombe o različnih vidikih preiskave prejela od družbe Jinan Meide, drugih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, enega tajskega proizvajalca izvoznika, petih proizvajalcev Unije in osmih nepovezanih uvoznikov.
Comments on the reopening
Pripombe na obnovo preiskave
Jinan Meide argued that the illegality committed by the Union Institutions which led to the annulment of contested Regulation cannot be cured and the proceeding should be terminated without re-imposing any anti-dumping duty on Jinan Meide.
Družba Jinan Meide je trdila, da nezakonitosti, ki so jo zagrešile institucije Unije in zaradi katere je bila izpodbijana uredba razveljavljena, ni mogoče popraviti in da bi bilo treba postopek ustaviti brez ponovne uvedbe protidampinške dajatve za družbo Jinan Meide.
As stated above in recital 4, the Court of First Instance in the IPS case recognised that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, such as in an anti-dumping proceeding, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (4), je Splošno sodišče v zadevi IPS ugotovilo, da – kadar je postopek sestavljen iz več upravnih korakov, kot pri protidampinškem postopku – razglasitev ničnosti enega izmed navedenih korakov ne pomeni ničnosti celotnega postopka.
Since the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Court's judgment, this implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts.
Glede na to, da morajo institucije Unije upoštevati sodbo Sodišča, to pomeni, da se lahko odpravijo tisti vidiki izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do njene razveljavitve, neizpodbijani deli pa ostanejo nespremenjeni.
One unrelated importer claimed that it is procedurally not possible to reopen an investigation which has previously been concluded, as substantive failures would consequently occur, like accepting new information after the closure of a case, discrimination against all other parties to the investigation whose dumping margins would be different if Jinan Meide's dumping margin was amended and a breach of EU and WTO law in the sense that anti-dumping measures cannot be applied retroactively.
En nepovezani uvoznik je trdil, da postopkovno ni mogoče obnoviti preiskave, ki je že končana, saj bi se zaradi tega pojavile vsebinske napake, kot so sprejetje novih informacij po zaključku zadeve, diskriminacija vseh drugih strani v preiskavi, katerih stopnje dampinga bi bile drugačne, če bi se spremenila stopnja dampinga družbe Jinan Meide, in kršitev zakonodaje EU in STO, saj protidampinških ukrepov ni mogoče izvajati retroaktivno.
This importer also claimed that a reopening does not appear to be permitted under the terms of the basic Regulation.
Ta uvoznik je trdil tudi, da se ne zdi, da bi bila obnova preiskave dovoljena pod pogoji osnovne uredbe.
The same party also stated that the Commission is not authorised to take action to implement a Court judgment in respect of a Council Regulation as the Commission was not the defendant in Case T-424/13.
Navedel je še, da Komisija ni pooblaščena za sprejetje ukrepov za izvrševanje sodbe Sodišča v zvezi z uredbo Sveta, saj Komisija v zadevi T-424/13 ni bila toženec.
It claimed that the Commission needs to receive formal instructions from the Council to launch a reopening.
Trdil je, da mora za obnovitev preiskave Svet Komisiji dati uradna navodila.
It is clear from the judgment of joined cases C-283/14 and C-284/14 [7] that the EU Institutions may reopen an anti-dumping investigation to amend irregularities found by the European Courts even though this is not expressly provided for in the basic Regulation.
Iz sodbe v združenih zadevah C-283/14 in C-284/14 [7] je jasno, da lahko institucije EU obnovijo protidampinško preiskavo, da bi popravile nepravilnosti, ki so jih ugotovila evropska sodišča, čeprav osnovna uredba tega izrecno ne določa.
The EU Institutions are in fact required to take the necessary measures to remedy illegalities.
Institucije EU pravzaprav morajo sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za odpravo nezakonitosti.
In this case, as the investigating authority, the Commission reopened the investigation in order to implement the Court's judgement.
V tem primeru je Komisija kot preiskovalni organ obnovila preiskavo, da bi izvršila sodbo Sodišča.
The reopening of this investigation follows the legal procedures required by the basic Regulation, which provide for adoption by the Commission after consulting the Member States under the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation.
Ta preiskava je bila obnovljena v skladu s pravnimi postopki, ki se zahtevajo po osnovni uredbi in določajo, da Komisija sprejme akte po posvetovanju z državami članicami v skladu s postopkom pregleda iz člena 15(3) osnovne uredbe.
One importer stated that it was not clear to what extent a reopening can be carried on under the provisions of the current basic Regulation, as it is apparent the Commission intended to pursue the investigation as if it were put back in time when Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [8] was still in force.
En uvoznik je trdil, da ni jasno, v kakšnem obsegu se lahko preiskava obnovi na podlagi določb veljavne osnovne uredbe, saj je očitno, da je Komisija nameravala preiskavo izvesti tako, kot da se je izvedla v času, ko je še veljala Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 [8].
The law applicable to this reinvestigation is Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, which was the substantive law at the time of the adoption of the regulation annulled by the Court.
Pravo, ki se uporablja za to ponovno preiskavo, je Uredba (ES) št. 1225/2009, ki je bilo materialno pravo v času sprejetja uredbe, ki jo je Sodišče razveljavilo.
In any event, Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is a codification of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and its amendments.
Vsekakor pa je Uredba (EU) 2016/1036 kodifikacija Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009 in njenih sprememb.
An exporting producer from Thailand argued that the Commission must re-impose the duty of 40,8 % on Jinan Meide without modification, as the General Court did not find fault with any substantive findings, only a procedural irregularity.
Proizvajalec izvoznik s Tajske je trdil, da mora Komisija za družbo Jinan Meide znova uvesti dajatev v višini 40,8 % brez spremembe, saj Splošno sodišče ni ugotovilo napake glede katerih koli vsebinskih ugotovitev, ampak le postopkovno nepravilnost.
It also claimed that any substantive reconsideration can only address the normal value calculation for Jinan Meide and all other findings in the contested Regulation should remain valid, as there was no indication in the General Court's judgment that remedying the procedural irregularity should result in any substantive changes to the normal value calculation for Jinan Meide.
Trdil je tudi, da se lahko morebiti znova prouči le izračun normalne vrednosti za družbo Jinan Meide, vse druge ugotovitve v izpodbijani uredbi pa bi morale ostati veljavne, saj v sodbi Splošnega sodišča ni bilo nobene navedbe, da bi se moral zaradi odprave postopkovne nepravilnosti bistveno spremeniti izračun normalne vrednosti za družbo Jinan Meide.
In the judgment leading to the present reopening, the General Court held that it could not be ruled out that if the request for disclosure of confidential data of the analogue country producer had been accepted, the outcome of the investigation could have been different.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi, ki je bila podlaga za to obnovitev, presodilo, da ni mogoče izključiti, da bi bil izid preiskave drugačen, če bi bilo zahtevi za razkritje zaupnih podatkov proizvajalca iz primerljive države ugodeno.
The reopening has therefore to examine possible impact on substance of the investigation.
Pri obnovitvi je treba torej proučiti morebitni učinek na vsebino preiskave.
One unrelated importer argued that as the Union industry did not submit any comments concerning the reopening, which allegedly meant that there is no Union interest to conduct this reopened investigation.
Industrija Unije ni predložila nobenih pripomb v zvezi z obnovitvijo preiskave, kar naj bi po mnenju enega nepovezanega uvoznika pomenilo, da industrija Unije za to obnovitev preiskave nima interesa.
The lack of submission by a certain type of operator cannot per se lead to any conclusion on substance in an investigation.
To, da neka vrsta gospodarskega subjekta ni predložila pripomb, samo po sebi ne vodi do kakršnega koli sklepa o vsebini v preiskavi.
In any case, five Union producers requested the Commission to re-impose the anti-dumping duty on Jinan Meide urgently and even to register imports for potential retroactive imposition of duties, in order to limit the damage the current situation causes to the Union producers.
V vsakem primeru je pet proizvajalcev Unije od Komisije zahtevalo, naj za družbo Jinan Meide nujno znova uvede protidampinško dajatev in celo, da naj registrira uvoz zaradi morebitne retroaktivne uvedbe dajatev, da bi se omejila škoda, ki jo trenutno stanje povzroča proizvajalcem Unije.
Comments on the calculation of normal value
Pripombe glede izračuna normalne vrednosti
Jinan Meide claimed that it should get comprehensive access to all information submitted by the analogue country producer and abundant time to lodge comments.
Družba Jinan Meide je trdila, da bi morala dobiti popoln dostop do vseh informacij, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec iz primerljive države, in veliko časa, da predloži pripombe.
All such information was made available to Jinan Meide, and Jinan Meide had time to lodge comments beyond the time-frame foreseen in the basic Regulation, including several hearings with the case team and with the Hearing Officer.
Vse take informacije so bile dane na voljo družbi Jinan Meide in zadevna družba je imela za predložitev pripomb več časa, kot je bilo predvideno v osnovni uredbi, tudi na več zaslišanjih s skupino, ki se je ukvarjala z zadevo, in pooblaščencem za zaslišanje.
Following disclosure of the confidential information and the dumping calculations, Jinan Meide also made submissions outside of deadlines set for that purpose, which were nevertheless considered.
Družba Jinan Meide je po razkritju zaupnih informacij in izračunu dampinga pripombe predložila tudi po rokih, ki so bili določeni v ta namen, vendar so se kljub temu upoštevale.
Jinan Meide claimed that an ordinary course of trade test should not be carried out, since the analogue country producer was not able to provide a reliable cost of production by type of the like product.
Trdila je, da se preizkus običajnega poteka trgovanja ne bi smel izvesti, saj proizvajalec iz primerljive države ni mogel zagotoviti zanesljivega podatka o strošku proizvodnje glede na vrsto podobnega izdelka.
One importer supported this argument, since a cost allocation based on turnover assumes that the same profit margin is generated for all product types, which is allegedly unreliable.
En uvoznik je podprl to trditev, saj se pri razporeditvi stroškov na podlagi prihodka od prodaje predvideva, da se enaka stopnja dobička ustvari pri vseh vrstah izdelka, kar pa je domnevno nezanesljivo.
However, the Commission consistently carries out the ordinary course of trade test in its investigations.
Vendar Komisija v svojih preiskavah redno izvaja preizkus običajnega poteka trgovanja.
In particular, Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation specifically deals with such situations as referred to by Jinan Meide, stating that in the absence of a more appropriate method, preference shall be given to the allocation of costs on the basis of turnover.
Taki primeri, kot jih je navedla družba Jinan Meide, se posebej obravnavajo zlasti v členu 2(5) osnovne uredbe, v skladu s katerim se prednost, če ni na voljo primernejše metode, da razporeditvi stroškov na podlagi prihodka od prodaje.
In this respect, it is noted that the costs were allocated on the basis of turnover and that no other more suitable method was proposed by any interested party.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so se stroški razporedili na podlagi prihodka od prodaje in da nobena zainteresirana stran ni predlagala druge, primernejše metode.
The decision to allocate costs on the basis of turnover and to carry out an ordinary course of trade test was therefore maintained.
Odločitev, da se stroški razporedijo na podlagi prihodka od prodaje in da se izvede preizkus običajnega poteka trgovanja, se je zato ohranila.
Jinan Meide requested that product types that are sold by the analogue country producer in quantities below 200 kg should be disregarded from the normal value calculation, as prices of such product types are allegedly unreliable.
Družba Jinan Meide je zahtevala, da se vrste izdelka, ki jih proizvajalec iz primerljive države prodaja v količinah, manjših od 200 kg, ne upoštevajo pri izračunu normalne vrednosti, saj so cene takih vrst izdelkov domnevno nezanesljive.
It is noted that Jinan Meide claimed during the original investigation that the 5 % representativity test should not be carried out when normal value is established in an analogue country, and this claim was accepted by the Commission at the time.
Opozoriti je treba, da je družba Jinan Meide med prvotno preiskavo trdila, da se preizkus reprezentativnosti 5 % ne bi smel izvesti, kadar se normalna vrednost določi v primerljivi državi; Komisija je to trditev takrat sprejela.
The claim to disregard sales of product types sold in quantities below 200 kg is rejected since sales prices for types of the like product sold in quantities below 200 kg cannot be considered unreliable, as they were verified and found as reliable as any other sales prices.
Trditev, da se ne sme upoštevati prodaja vrst izdelka, ki se prodajajo v količinah, manjših od 200 kg, se zavrne, saj prodajnih cen za vrste podobnega izdelka, ki se prodajajo v količinah, manjših od 200 kg, ni mogoče šteti za nezanesljive, ker so bile preverjene in je bilo ugotovljeno, da so tako zanesljive kot katere koli druge prodajne cene.
One importer supported Jinan Meide's argument, since the price volatility for slow-moving product types would allegedly be high.
En uvoznik je podprl trditev družbe Jinan Meide, saj naj bi bila nestabilnost cen vrst izdelkov, ki se ne prodajajo v velikih količinah, velika.
This would mean that product types may have a very similar quality and cost structure, but might be sold at very different prices.
To bi pomenilo, da so lahko vrste izdelkov zelo podobne kakovosti in imajo zelo podobno strukturo stroškov, a se lahko prodajajo po zelo različnih cenah.
However, the Commission established that, in respect of the analogue country producer, the price volatility is high for all product types, even the best-selling items.
Vendar je Komisija ugotovila, da je nestanovitnost cen, kar zadeva proizvajalca iz primerljive države, velika pri vseh vrstah izdelka, tudi najbolje prodajanih.
Therefore, the alleged high price volatility cannot be used as an argument to exclude slow-moving product types from the dumping calculation.
Zato z domnevno veliko nestanovitnostjo cen ni mogoče utemeljiti izključitve izdelkov, ki se ne prodajajo v velikih količinah, iz izračuna dampinga.
Jinan Meide also claimed that as the Commission had allocated costs of the analogue country producer on the basis of turnover, the normal value should not be constructed if the comparable types of the like product in the analogue country were sold in quantities below 200 kg, but that the normal value should be established in such cases on the basis of prices of other similar types sold in larger quantities.
Družba Jinan Meide je trdila tudi, da je Komisija stroške proizvajalca iz primerljive države razporedila na podlagi prihodka od prodaje, zato se normalna vrednost ne bi smela konstruirati, če so se primerljive vrste podobnega izdelka v primerljivi državi prodajale v količinah, manjših od 200 kg, ampak bi jo bilo treba v takih primerih določiti na podlagi cen drugih podobnih vrst izdelkov, ki se prodajajo v večjih količinah.
This claim was likewise rejected, as the allocation of total costs on the basis of turnover is in line with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation and the arguments of Jinan Meide were not sufficient to justify a different methodology in this particular case.
Tudi ta trditev je bila zavrnjena, saj je razporejanje skupnih stroškov na podlagi prihodka od prodaje v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe, trditve družbe Jinan Meide pa niso zadoščale za uporabo drugačne metodologije v tem primeru.
Comments on the comparison of normal value and export price
Pripombe glede primerjave normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene
Jinan Meide brought forward claims concerning adjustments in the analogue country producer's data for credit, packing expenses, level of trade, bank charges, domestic transport, credit notes, indirect taxes, technical support, use of different raw materials and different labour productivity.
Družba Jinan Meide je trdila, da so bili podatki proizvajalca iz primerljive države glede kredita, stroškov pakiranja, ravni trgovanja, bančnih stroškov, notranjega prevoza, dobropisov, posrednih davkov, tehnične podpore, uporabe drugačnih surovin in drugačne produktivnosti dela, prilagojeni.
The Commission accepted the claim concerning domestic transport and the credit costs as related to one single customer of the analogue country producer and the corresponding adjustments were made in the dumping calculation of Jinan Meide.
Komisija je sprejela trditev glede notranjega prevoza in stroškov kredita v zvezi z eno samo stranko proizvajalca iz primerljive države, pri izračunu dampinga družbe Jinan Meide pa so se izvedle ustrezne prilagoditve.
As concerns the claims regarding the difference in labour productivity and the use of different raw materials, Jinan Meide alleged that the lower productivity per worker and the use of different raw materials lead to a moderate cost increase of the analogue country producer compared to Jinan Meide.
Kar zadeva trditve glede razlike v produktivnosti dela in uporabi drugačnih surovin, je družba Jinan Meide trdila, da je imel proizvajalec iz primerljive države zaradi manjše produktivnosti dela na delavca in uporabe drugačnih surovin za malenkost višje stroške kot družba Jinan Meide.
In this respect, it should be noted that while some differences in efficiency or productivity might exist between companies, the guiding principle of anti-dumping calculations is to ensure comparability between export prices and normal value, which does not require that the circumstances of an analogue country producer and an exporter in a non-market economy country are completely aligned.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je kljub nekaterim razlikam v učinkovitosti ali produktivnosti, ki morda obstajajo med podjetji, vodilno načelo izračunov protidampinga zagotovitev primerljivosti med izvoznimi cenami in normalno vrednostjo, pri čemer pa ni nujno, da so okoliščine med proizvajalcem iz primerljive države in izvoznikom v državi brez tržnega gospodarstva popolnoma enake.
Indeed, only differences for factors affecting prices and price comparability between an analogue country producer and an exporter in a non-market economy country warrant an adjustment.
Pravzaprav so lahko opravičljiv razlog za prilagoditev samo razlike v dejavnikih, ki vplivajo na cene in na primerljivost med proizvajalcem iz primerljive države in izvoznikom v državi brez tržnega gospodarstva.
The other claims were found not to be supported by the evidence collected on spot and present on the file and were thus rejected.
Za druge trditve se je ugotovilo, da niso podprte z dokazi, zbranimi na kraju samem in vključenimi v dokumentacijo, zato so bile zavrnjene.
Other relevant issues
Druga pomembna vprašanja
During the preparation of the final disclosure for Jinan Meide, the Commission spotted a clerical error concerning the adjustment for indirect taxes in the dumping calculation for Jinan Meide.
Komisija je med pripravo končnega razkritja za družbo Jinan Meide ugotovila stvarno napako v zvezi s prilagoditvijo posrednih davkov v izračunu dampinga za družbo Jinan Meide.
Contrary to what the Commission stated in the text of the provisional [9] and definitive [10] Regulations, due to a clerical error, the adjustment for indirect taxes was not done at the time of the final disclosure to Jinan Meide, although it was done at the provisional stage.
V nasprotju z navedbo Komisije se v besedilu začasne [9] in dokončne [10] uredbe prilagoditev za posredne davke zaradi stvarne napake ni izvedla ob končnem razkritju družbi Jinan Meide, ampak v začasni fazi.
For reasons of good administration, this error was corrected.
Zaradi dobrega upravljanja je bila ta napaka popravljena.
On 12 April 2017, the Commission informed all interested parties of the above findings on the basis of which it was intended to propose to re-impose the anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, excluding bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid, from Jinan Meide on the basis of the facts collected and submitted relating to the original investigation.
Komisija je 12. aprila 2017 vse zainteresirane strani obvestila o navedenih ugotovitvah, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala predlagati ponovna uvedba protidampinške dajatve na uvoz navojnega litega pribora (fitingov) za cevi iz tempranega litega železa, razen ohišij kompresijskega pribora z metričnimi navoji ISO DIN 13 in navojnih krožnih razdelilnih omaric iz tempranega železa, ki nimajo pokrova, družbe Jinan Meide, na podlagi zbranih in predloženih dejstev v zvezi s prvotno preiskavo.
Jinan Meide and three unrelated importers claimed that the Commission could not proceed with the correction of the clerical error (concerning the adjustment for indirect taxes in its dumping margin calculation) in the framework of the present reopening, because the clerical error was not related to the implementation of the judgment of the General Court.
Družba Jinan Meide in trije nepovezani uvozniki so trdili, da Komisija v okviru te obnovitve preiskave ne more popraviti stvarne napake (v zvezi s prilagoditvijo za posredne davke v svojem izračunu stopnje dampinga), saj stvarna napaka ni bila povezana z izvrševanjem sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
Jinan Meide also requested and was granted a hearing with the Hearing Officer.
Zahtevala je tudi zaslišanje pred pooblaščencem za zaslišanje, ki je bilo odobreno.
Two unrelated importers claimed that the Commission is prevented from putting the exporting producer in a position worse than originally found.
Dva nepovezana uvoznika sta trdila, da Komisija proizvajalca izvoznika ne sme postaviti v položaj, ki je slabši od prvotno ugotovljenega.