natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
Podobni izdelek
The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Preiskava je pokazala, da imajo naslednji izdelki enake osnovne fizikalne lastnosti in enake osnovne uporabe:
Claims regarding product scope
zadevni izdelek,
In their comments after the initiation of the investigation, the CCCME contested the Commission's intention to group all electric bicycles as one single product.
izdelek, ki se proizvaja in prodaja na domačem trgu Švice, ki je bila začasno uporabljena kot primerljiva država,
In particular, they argued that speed electric bicycles (electric bicycles with a speed of more than 25 km/h and up to 45 km/h) should be excluded from the scope of the investigation.
izdelek, ki ga v Uniji proizvaja in prodaja industrija Unije.
While the engine of standard electric bicycles has a maximum power of 250 W, the engine of speed electric bicycles can have a higher power of typically 350 – 500 W.
Komisija se je v tej fazi odločila, da so navedeni izdelki zato podobni izdelki v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The CCCME argued that these bicycles have significantly different characteristics and intended uses, and also significantly different prices.
Trditve glede obsega izdelka
From the consumers' perspective speed electric bicycles are not interchangeable with all the other electric bicycles covered by this investigation.
Zbornica CCCME je v pripombah, ki jih je predložila po začetku preiskave, nasprotovala nameri Komisije, da vse vrste električnih koles šteje za en sam izdelek.
According to CCCME, there are several reasons for which speed electric bicycles are different from other electric bicycles.
Zlasti je trdila, da bi bilo treba iz obsega preiskave izključiti hitra električna kolesa (električna kolesa s hitrostjo več kot 25 km/h in do 45 km/h).
First, the raw materials and components are different.
Motor običajnih električnih koles ima največjo moč 250 W, motor hitrih električnih koles pa lahko ima večjo moč, običajno od 350 do 500 W.
For instance, the engine for speed electric bicycles has a higher power rating and the materials for electric bicycles have higher strength and quality.
Zbornica CCCME je trdila, da imajo ta kolesa bistveno drugačne lastnosti in predvidene uporabe ter tudi bistveno drugačne cene.
Second, the costs and prices would be significantly different.
Z vidika potrošnika hitra električna kolesa niso medsebojno zamenljiva z nobenimi drugimi električnimi kolesi, zajetimi v tej preiskavi.
Since there are stricter requirements for the quality and strength of the parts used to produce speed electric bicycles, the cost of producing speed electric bicycles is higher than that of ordinary electric bicycles, which in turn causes a final higher sales price.
Po mnenju zbornice CCCME se hitra električna kolesa od drugih električnih koles razlikujejo iz več razlogov.
Third, the CN codes would be different.
Prvič, niso iz enakih surovin in sestavnih delov.
Since 1 January 2017, ordinary electric bicycles have been classified under CN code 87116010 and speed electric bicycles under CN code 87116090.
Motor za hitra električna kolesa ima na primer večjo nazivno moč, materiali za električna kolesa pa so močnejša in kakovostnejša.
Before 2017, ordinary electric bicycles were classified under (ex) CN code 87119010 and speed electric bicycles under (ex) CN code 87119090.
Drugič, stroški in cene so bistveno drugačni.
Fourth, speed electric bicycles are regarded as motor vehicles (vehicle category L1e-B), so drivers are required to have a licence and to wear helmets.
Za kakovost in moč delov za proizvodnjo hitrih električnih koles veljajo strožje zahteve, zato je strošek proizvodnje hitrih električnih koles višji od stroška proizvodnje običajnih električnih koles, zaradi tega pa je višja tudi končna prodajna cena.
There are no such requirements for ordinary electric bicycles.
Tretjič, imajo drugačne oznake KN.
These requirements will substantially constrain who can purchase and operate the speed electric bicycles.
Od 1. januarja 2017 so običajna električna kolesa uvrščena pod oznako KN 87116010, hitra električna kolesa pa pod oznako KN 87116090.
Fifth, the types of consumers for the speed electric bicycles are different.
Pred letom 2017 so bila običajna električna kolesa uvrščena pod oznako (ex) KN 87119010, hitra električna kolesa pa pod oznako (ex) KN 87119090.
Normally, purchasers of ordinary electric bicycles are mainly office workers or elderly persons who appreciate the additional power assist, while purchasers of speed electric bicycles are mostly young people using these electric bicycles for more strenuous or sporting activities.
Četrtič, hitra električna kolesa se štejejo za motorna vozila (kategorija vozil L1e-B), zato morajo imeti vozniki dovoljenje in nositi čelado.
The complainant argued that all electric bicycles share key common characteristics.
Za običajna električna kolesa take zahteve ne veljajo.
In particular, both are cycles designed to pedal, equipped with an auxiliary electric motor for pedal assistance.
Te zahteve bodo močno omejile, kdo lahko kupi hitra električna kolesa in jih upravlja.
Moreover, all electric bicycles are subject to the same tests under the European Standard EN 15194.
Petič, hitrih električnih koles ne kupujejo iste vrste potrošnikov.
On this basis, the complainant concluded that they form one single product for the purpose of the present investigations.
Kupci običajnih električnih koles so večinoma pisarniški delavci ali starejše osebe zaradi dodatnega pomožnega pogona, kupci hitrih električnih koles pa so večinoma mladi, ki ta električna kolesa uporabljajo za zahtevnejše ali športne dejavnosti.
The complainant also pointed out that due to the fact that the auxiliary motor assistance cut-off speed could be easily changed from 25 km/h to 45km/h and vice-versa, as this is primarily a question of software programming and not actual physical differences.
Pritožnik je trdil, da imajo vsa električna kolesa ključne skupne lastnosti.
During the investigation, an importer claimed that electric bicycles falling under the L1e-A category should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.
Zlasti je trdil, da gre v obeh primerih za kolesa, zasnovana tako, da se poganjajo s pedali, in so opremljena s pomožnim električnim motorjem za pomoč pri poganjanju s pedali.
The L1e-A category covers electric bicycles with an auxiliary motor support of up to 25 km/h, but with an engine power of up to 1 kW.
Poleg tega se za vsa električna kolesa izvajajo isti preskusi na podlagi evropskega standarda EN 15194.
Allegedly, L1e-A category electric bicycles are not produced in the Union, and not specifically mentioned in the complaint.
Pritožnik je na tej podlagi sklenil, da gre za namene te preiskave za en sam izdelek.
The importer further claims that L1e-A category electric bicycles cannot have caused injury to the Union industry, since the first L1e-A category electric bicycle was sold on the Union market more than eight weeks after the complainant lodged the complaint.
Pritožnik je to poudaril tudi zato, ker se lahko vrtilna frekvenca pomožnega motornega pogona s 25 km/h zlahka poveča na 45 km/h in obratno, saj je to zlasti vprašanje programiranja programske opreme in ne dejanskih fizikalnih razlik.
The Commission took all these comments into account.
Med preiskavo je uvoznik trdil, da bi bilo treba električna kolesa, ki spadajo v kategorijo L1e-A, izključiti iz obsega izdelka v preiskavi.
It noted that the product scope of the complaint indeed covered all cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor.
Kategorija L1e-A zajema električna kolesa s pomožnim motornim pogonom do 25 km/h in močjo motorja do 1 kW.
The product scope of the complaint contains no limitation on the vehicle classification.
Domnevno se električna kolesa kategorije L1e-A ne proizvajajo v Uniji in niso posebej navedena v pritožbi.
It was therefore concluded that L1e-A category electric bicycles are covered by the complaint.
Uvoznik nadalje trdi, da električna kolesa kategorije L1e-A niso mogla povzročiti škode industriji Unije, saj je bilo prvo električno kolo kategorije L1e-A na trgu Unije prodano več kot osem tednov po tem, ko je pritožnik vložil pritožbo.
It was also clear from the importer's own website that L1e-A electric bicycles have all the benefits of a regular electric bicycle but with more power.
Komisija je vse te pripombe upoštevala.
The importer in particular emphasises that in most Member States L1e-A category electric bicycles do not require a helmet and can be used on regular cycle lanes and paths.
Opozorila je, da obseg izdelka v pritožbi dejansko zajema vsa kolesa s pedali, s pomožnim električnim motorjem.
With regards to speed electric bicycles, it is claimed that they have a significantly higher cost of production and sales price.
Obseg izdelka v pritožbi ne vsebuje nobenih omejitev glede klasifikacije vozila.
This, as such, is not a reason for excluding a product from the product scope, since the product scope commonly includes goods sold at different prices.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da so električna kolesa kategorije L1e-A zajeta v pritožbi.
This factor is however taken into account in the comparisons in the dumping and injury calculations.
Z lastnega spletišča uvoznika je bilo tudi razvidno, da imajo električna kolesa kategorije L1e-A vse prednosti običajnega električnega kolesa, vendar z več moči.
As regards the different intended use and consumer perception, it is argued that normal electric bicycles are predominantly sold to elderly people, recreational cyclists, and also office workers, while speed electric bicycles are mostly used for more strenuous activities such as commuting.
Uvoznik zlasti poudarja, da v večini držav članic pri električnih kolesih kategorije L1e-A čelada ni potrebna ter da se lahko uporabljajo na običajnih kolesarskih stezah in poteh.
Since office workers are likely to use their normal electric bicycle for driving from their home to the work place, this use is very similar to the use of commuting for speed electric bicycles.
Kar zadeva hitra električna kolesa, je bila predložena trditev, da so njihovi stroški proizvodnje in prodajna cena precej višji.
It is therefore concluded that the intended use and consumer perception overlap to a significant extent, and therefore do not warrant a product exclusion.
To samo po sebi ni razlog za izključitev izdelka iz obsega izdelka, saj obseg izdelka navadno vključuje blago, ki se prodaja po različnih cenah.
With regard to both claims for exclusion, the Commission concluded that speed electric bicycles and the L1e-A category bicycles share the same physical characteristics with other electric bicycles and thus fall within the product scope.
Vendar se ta dejavnik upošteva pri primerjavah v okviru izračuna dampinga in škode.
While the Commission acknowledged that there are different product types within the general category of the product concerned, this cannot per se lead to exclusion from the product scope.
Kar zadeva različno predvideno uporabo in dojemanje potrošnikov, se trdi, da se običajna električna kolesa prodajajo zlasti starejšim ljudem, rekreativnim kolesarjem in tudi pisarniškim delavcem, hitra električna kolesa pa se večinoma uporabljajo za zahtevnejše dejavnosti, kot je dnevna migracija.
Different customs classification within the same general category of the product concerned is also not a criterion which per se would lead to exclusion.
Ker pisarniški delavci svoje običajno električno kolo verjetno uporabljajo za vožnjo od doma do delovnega mesta, je ta uporaba zelo podobna uporabi hitrih električnih koles za dnevno migracijo.
It is indeed very common in anti-dumping investigations that the product concerned encompasses a range of customs codes.
Zato se sklene, da se predvidena uporaba in dojemanje potrošnikov precej prekrivata ter zato ne upravičujeta izključitve proizvoda.
Finally, requirements relating to the after sale use of the product concerned or the like product do not affect the basic physical characteristics that define that product for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations.
Kar zadeva obe trditvi glede izključitve, je Komisija sklenila, da imajo hitra električna kolesa in kolesa kategorije L1e-A enake fizikalne lastnosti kot druga električna kolesa, zato spadajo v obseg izdelka.
In the same vein, the product scope is not defined by categories of consumers that will be opting for one product type or the other.
Komisija je priznala, da splošna kategorija zadevnega izdelka zajema različne vrste izdelka, vendar to samo po sebi ne more voditi v izključitev iz obsega izdelka.
One importer claimed that electrical tricycles should be removed from the product scope of the investigation.
Različna carinska razvrstitev v okviru iste splošne kategorije zadevnega izdelka tudi ni merilo, ki bi samo po sebi vodilo v izključitev.
It alleged that it is not clear whether the investigation actually covered all types of cycles (including bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles) or only bicycles, because the title of the Notice of Initiation stated that the anti-dumping proceeding concerns import of electric bicycles.
V protidampinških preiskavah je dejansko zelo običajno, da zadevni izdelek vključuje niz carinskih oznak.
The Commission noted that the product scope of the investigation is, however, not defined by the title of the Notice of Initiation, but by section ‘2.
Nazadnje, zahteve glede uporabe zadevnega izdelka ali podobnega izdelka po prodaji ne vplivajo na osnovne fizikalne lastnosti, ki opredeljujejo navedeni izdelek za namene protidampinških preiskav.
Product under investigation’.
Podobno obsega izdelka ne opredeljujejo kategorije potrošnikov, ki se bodo odločili za eno ali drugo vrsto izdelka.
This section clearly defines that the product under investigation covers ‘cycles’.
En uvoznik je trdil, da bi bilo treba električne trikolesnike izključiti iz obsega izdelka v preiskavi.
The term ‘cycles’ is not limited to bicycles with 2 wheels, but also includes tricycles and quadricycles.
Trdil je, da ni jasno, ali preiskava dejansko zajema vse vrste koles (vključno z dvo-, tri- in štirikolesniki) ali le dvokolesa, ker je v naslovu obvestila o začetku navedeno, da se protidampinški postopek nanaša na uvoz električnih koles.
Since bicycles are by far the most common type of cycle, the title referred to bicycles, without excluding other types of cycles from the scope of the investigation.
Komisija je opozorila, da obseg izdelka v preiskavi ni opredeljen z naslovom obvestila o začetku, ampak z njegovim oddelkom „2.
The importer further claimed that the investigation specifically focused on bicycles.
Izdelek v preiskavi“.
The Commission disagreed with this claim.
V tem oddelku je jasno opredeljeno, da izdelek v preiskavi zajema „kolesa“.
It had collected information covering all types of electric cycles; Union producers and exporters were required to indicate the number of wheels for all products they produced and sold on the Union market.
Izraz „kolesa“ ni omejen na kolesa z dvema kolesoma, ampak vključuje tudi trikolesnike in štirikolesnike.
It is therefore clear that tricycles were separately identified and investigated throughout the investigation.
Ker so dvokolesna kolesa daleč najobičajnejša vrsta koles, se je naslov nanašal na dvokolesna kolesa, pri čemer iz obsega preiskave niso bile izključene druge vrste koles.
As bicycles are undisputedly the most common type of cycles, it is not surprising that the term e-bikes/electric bikes is generally used to refer to all types of electric cycles, in the investigation as well as in the market.
Uvoznik je nadalje trdil, da je bila preiskava posebej osredotočena na dvokolesa.
This does not mean that other types of cycles were disregarded in the investigation.
Komisija se s to trditvijo ni strinjala.
It is therefore concluded that speed electric bicycles, L1e-A category electric bicycles and electric tricycles share the same basic physical characteristics and properties as well as end-uses with other types of electric cycles, and therefore cannot be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.
Zbrala je informacije o vseh vrstah električnih koles; proizvajalci in izvozniki Unije so morali navesti število koles za vse izdelke, ki so jih proizvedli in prodali na trgu Unije.
DUMPING
Zato je jasno, da so bili trikolesniki v preiskavi ločeno opredeljeni in preiskani.
Normal value
Dvokolesa so nedvomno najobičajnejša vrsta koles, zato ni presenetljivo, da se izraz e-kolesa/električna kolesa v preiskavi in tudi na trgu na splošno uporablja za vse vrste električnih koles.
Market economy treatment (‘MET’)
To ne pomeni, da se v preiskavi niso upoštevale druge vrste koles.
Under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission determines normal value in accordance with Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation for any exporting producer in the PRC which complies with the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and could therefore be granted MET.
Zato se sklene, da imajo hitra električna kolesa, električna kolesa kategorije L1e-A in električna trikolesa enake osnovne fizikalne lastnosti ter končne uporabe kot druge vrste električnih koles, zato jih ni mogoče izključiti iz obsega izdelka v preiskavi.
In this respect, it claimed that the use of a non-market economy methodology to reach a determination after 11 December 2016 is contrary to the Union's WTO obligations.
Normalna vrednost
Consequently, the relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the basic Regulation in its version applicable at the time of initiation.
Zbornica CCCMC je trdila, da bi morala po prenehanju veljavnosti odstavka 15(a)(ii) Protokola o pristopu LRK k Svetovni trgovinski organizaciji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: STO) 11. decembra 2016 za kitajske izvoznike veljati splošna pravila za določitev normalne vrednosti.
The normal value is therefore to be established on the basis of Article 2(7)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation as applicable at the date of initiation of this investigation in October 2017.
V zvezi s tem je navedla, da je uporaba metodologije netržnega gospodarstva za določitev po 11. decembru 2016 v nasprotju z obveznostmi Unije v okviru STO.
Therefore, the claim by the CCCME is rejected.
Trdila je tudi, da normalna vrednost ne sme temeljiti na primerljivi državi, ampak na podatkih o kitajski prodaji in stroških.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation for market economy treatment are that:
Merila za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe so na kratko in za lažjo referenco povzeta tako:
business decisions are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values;
poslovne odločitve se sprejemajo glede na tržne razmere in brez večjega vmešavanja države, pri čemer stroški odražajo tržne vrednosti;
firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes;
podjetja imajo jasno določeno zbirko osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se pregledujejo neodvisno, v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi in se uporabljajo v vse namene;
currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.
menjava valut se izvaja po tržnem tečaju.
Only one sampled exporting producer, the Giant group, claimed MET and replied within the deadline.
Samo en vzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik, tj. skupina Giant Group, je zahteval TGO in odgovoril v določenem roku.
As this case involved related parties, the Commission examined whether the group of related companies as a whole fulfilled the conditions for MET.
Ker ta primer vključuje povezane stranke, je Komisija preverila, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO.
Therefore, where a subsidiary or any other company related to the exporting producer in the PRC was involved, directly or indirectly, in the production or sales of the product concerned, the MET examination was carried out in respect of each related company individually as well as to the group of companies as a whole.
Zato se je preiskava v zvezi s TGO, kadar je bila v proizvodnjo ali prodajo zadevnega izdelka neposredno ali posredno vključena podrejena družba ali katera koli druga družba, povezana s proizvajalcem izvoznikom v LRK, izvedla za vsako družbo posebej in za skupino družb kot celoto.
The Commission sought all the information deemed necessary and verified all the information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the major legal entities of the group.
Komisija je poiskala vse potrebne informacije in preverila vse informacije iz zahtevkov za TGO v prostorih večjih pravnih subjektov skupine.
On this basis, the Commission found that the Giant group failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled the MET criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, notably criteria 1 and 3.
Na tej podlagi je Komisija ugotovila, da skupina Giant Group ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merila za TGO iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zlasti merili št. 1 in 3.
Therefore, the Commission rejected its claim for MET.
Zato je Komisija zavrnila njen zahtevek za TGO.
The Giant group failed to demonstrate that there is no significant State interference and that costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values in its production of the product concerned.
Poleg tega skupini Giant Group ni uspelo dokazati, da se država ni bistveno vmešavala in da stroški glavnih surovin v njeni proizvodnji zadevnega izdelka dejansko odražajo tržne vrednosti.
As explained in the MET disclosure, the Giant group purchases Chinese aluminium tubes and frames, whose prices are affected by the significant distortions of primary aluminium due to significant State interference.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v razkritju za TGO, skupina Giant Group kupuje kitajske aluminijaste cevi in okvire, na njihove cene pa vpliva znatno izkrivljanje trga primarnega aluminija zaradi bistvenega vmešavanja države.
On this basis, the Commission concluded that the Giant group failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled MET criterion 1.
Na tej podlagi je Komisija sklenila, da skupina Giant Group ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merilo št. 1 v zvezi s TGO.
Moreover, the Giant group also failed to demonstrate that it was not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
Poleg tega skupina Giant Group prav tako ni dokazala, da ni bila podvržena znatnemu izkrivljanju, ki se prenaša še iz predhodnega sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
According to the MET disclosure, the Giant Group benefitted from several preferential tax schemes, refunds, financial incentives, and special deductions for expenses incurred.
V skladu z razkritjem za TGO je imela skupina Giant Group korist od več ugodnejših davčnih shem, povračil, finančnih spodbud in posebnih odbitkov za nastale stroške.
These advantages, particularly in combination, are considered as significant distortions carried over from the non-market economy system.
Te ugodnosti, zlasti vse skupaj, se štejejo za znatno izkrivljanje, ki se prenaša še iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
Accordingly, it did not fulfil MET criterion 3.
Zato ni izpolnjevala merila št. 3 v zvezi s TGO.
The Commission disclosed the findings to the exporting producer concerned, to the authorities of the country concerned and to the Union industry.
Komisija je ugotovitve razkrila zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku, organom zadevne države in industriji Unije.
Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the findings and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da predložijo pripombe k ugotovitvam in zahtevajo zaslišanje pred Komisijo in/ali pooblaščencem za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
Following the disclosure of MET findings, the Giant group submitted a number of comments.
Skupina Giant Group je po razkritju ugotovitev v zvezi s TGO predložila več pripomb.