natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although it can be expected that as a consequence of such concentration the negotiating power of the largest Union producers will increase, no clearance decision has yet been adopted in respect of these arrangements at the moment of adoption of this regulation, which would enable the Commission to assess their relevance for the current case.
V vsakem primeru osnovna uredba predvideva možnost obravnave sprememb okoliščin, kadar je to utemeljeno, in ustrezen začetek vmesnih pregledov.
In any case the basic Regulation provides the possibility to address changes in circumstances where justified and accordingly initiate interim reviews.
Združenje CISA je v svojem odgovoru na dokončno razkritje ponovilo svoje stališče glede sprememb konkurence na trgu Unije.
In its response to the definitive disclosure CISA reiterated its point relating to changes in competition on the Union market.
Vendar Komisija še vedno meni, da osnovna uredba predvideva možnost obravnave sprememb okoliščin, kadar je to utemeljeno, vendar v tem primeru ni prejela dokazov o nujnosti začetka pregleda.
However, the Commission maintains its view that the basic Regulation provides the possibility to address changes in circumstances where justified but that, in this specific case, it has received no evidence that the opening of a review is necessary.
Združenje CISA je poleg tega trdilo, da so zaradi sprememb razmer na trgu od določitve obdobja preiskave nastale razmere, v katerih bi bilo utemeljeno začasno opustiti ukrepe v skladu s členom 14(4) osnovne uredbe.
CISA further claimed that, because the situation on the market had changed since the investigation period was determined, a situation now exists which would justify a suspension of the measures in accordance with Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation.
Razlogi, ki jih je navedlo združenje CISA, so zvišanje cen zadevnega izdelka, domnevno pomanjkljiva preskrba in potekajoča preiskava o združitvi, ki jo izvaja Komisija.
The reasons quoted by CISA are price rises for the product concerned, an alleged shortage of supply and an ongoing merger investigation conducted by the Commission.
Prvič, Komisija nima dokazov, da je zvišanje cen pomembno vplivalo na položaj industrije Unije.
Firstly, the Commission has no evidence that the rise in prices has made a substantial difference to the situation of the Union industry.
Drugič, trditev v zvezi s pomanjkljivo preskrbo ni prepričljiva, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 111.
Secondly, the claim of shortage of supply is unconvincing as explained at recital 111.
Tretjič, Komisija nima dokazov, da so se konkurenčni pogoji na trgu Unije spremenili in, če je tako, koliko so se spremenili.
Thirdly, the Commission has no evidence that conditions of competition on the Union market have changed and if so to what degree.
Poleg tega ni dokazov, da je malo verjetno, da bi se škoda zaradi opustitve ukrepov nadaljevala.
Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that injury would be unlikely to resume as a result of the suspension.
Zato Komisija meni, da opustitev ukrepov ne bi bila upravičena.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the suspension of the measures would not be justified.
Združenje CISA je pripomnilo še, da bi bilo treba uvesti dokončne protidampinške ukrepe v obliki minimalne cene, ne pa dajatve ad valorem, ki so bile uvedene z začasno uredbo in ki naj bi domnevno imele precejšnje negativne učinke na uvoznike in uporabnike.
CISA also commented that the definitive anti-dumping duties should be imposed in the form of a minimum price rather than the ad valorem duties as imposed by the provisional Regulation because of alleged significant negative impacts on importers and users.
Poudarjeno je bilo, da se je v dveh nedavnih zadevah ugotovilo, da je to utemeljeno.
It was pointed out that two recent cases had concluded that this was justified.
Spremembo oblike ukrepov je predlagalo tudi združenje ISTA, ki zastopa uvoznike Unije.
The change in the form of the measures was also proposed by ISTA, representing Union importers.
V tem primeru je Eurofer nasprotoval uvedbi minimalnih cen zaradi možnosti kompenzacijskih dogovorov v tem tržnem sektorju.
In this particular case Eurofer objected to the introduction of minimum prices because of the potential for compensatory arrangements in this market sector.
Opozoriti je treba, da se oblika ukrepov določi za vsak posamezni primer.
It should be noted that the form of the measures is determined on a case by case basis.
V tem primeru se Komisija ni strinjala z argumentom združenja CISA, da bi uvedba dajatev ad valorem povzročila precejšnje negativne učinke za uvoznike in uporabnike.
In this case the Commission disagreed with CISA's argument that the imposition of ad valorem duties would have significant negative impacts on importers and users.
Pravzaprav je bilo v uvodnih izjavah 148 do 156 začasne uredbe dokazano, da so bili uvozniki sposobni prenesti protidampinške dajatve na svoje stranke in so imeli druge vire preskrbe.
In fact it has been demonstrated at recitals 148 to 156 of the provisional Regulation that importers were able to pass on anti-dumping duties to their customers and had other sources of supply.
Uvedba minimalne cene ne bi zmanjšala stroškov glavnih uporabniških industrij, saj bi bil učinek minimalne cene in dajatev ad valorem enak.
Also for the main user industries the introduction of a minimum price would not reduce their costs because the resulting effect of both a minimum price and ad valorem duties would be the same.
Združenje CISA je v svojem odgovoru na dokončno razkritje ponovilo svoje stališče o obliki ukrepov in trdilo, da bi bilo treba v interesu uporabnikov in uvoznikov Unije uvesti določene sisteme minimalnih cen ali fiksno dajatev.
In its response to the definitive disclosure CISA reiterated its point relating to the form of the measures claiming that certain minimum price systems or a fixed duty should be imposed in the interests of Union users and importers.
Navedlo je, da so uporabniki Unije „v šibkem položaju“ zaradi domnevne koncentracije pogajalske moči na ravni industrije Unije.
The Union users were described by CISA as being in a ‘fragile situation’, because of an alleged concentration of negotiating power at the level of the Union industry.
Vendar je bilo sodelovanje uporabnikov in uvoznikov v tej preiskavi šibko, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 100 in oddelku 6.2 začasne uredbe.
However, as explained above at recital 100 and Section 6.2 of the provisional Regulation the cooperation of users and importers in this investigation is low.
Pravzaprav je zahtevane podatke za obdobje preiskave predložil samo en uporabnik in/ali uvoznik Unije.
In fact only one Union user and/or importer has supplied the requested data covering the investigation period.
Komisija zato ni mogla natančno opredeliti razmer v teh sektorjih, vendar razpoložljivi podatki nikakor ne kažejo na šibek položaj, ki ga navaja združenje CISA.
The Commission therefore has not been able to establish accurately the situation of these sectors but the information available certainly does not correspond to the fragile situation referred to by CISA.
Poleg tega združenje CISA ni zagotovilo nobene utemeljitve v zvezi s finančnim položajem uporabnikov/uvoznikov in vplivom domnevne koncentracije.
Furthermore, CISA did not provide any substantiation as concerns the users/importers' financial situation and the impact of the alleged concentration.
Zato Komisija ni mogla skleniti, da so obstajali dokazi za spremembo oblike ukrepov, ki bi bila v interesu uporabnikov in uvoznikov.
Therefore, the Commission could not conclude that evidence existed to change the form of the measures in the interests of users and importers.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da ni bilo utemeljenih dokazov, ki bi podprli spremembo oblike ukrepov.
Therefore it was concluded that there was no compelling evidence to support a change in the form of the measures.
Združenje ISTA, ki zastopa uvoznike Unije, je trdilo, da proizvajalci Unije zaradi uvedbe ukrepov ne bi mogli povečati proizvodnje, kar bi povzročilo težave s preskrbo na trgu.
ISTA, representing Union importers, claimed that problems of supply on the market would result from the imposition of measures as Union producers would not be able to increase output.
Trdilo je še, da bi kitajski uvoz zaradi ukrepov postal nekonkurenčen.
Further they claim that the measures would make Chinese imports uncompetitive.
Glede na to, da je bila v obdobju preiskave stopnja izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti industrije Unije le 79-odstotna ter da obstajajo številni viri uvoza, imajo uporabniki na voljo različne vire in ni razloga za mnenje, da ne morejo zamenjati dobaviteljev.
Bearing in mind that the Union industry was only at a capacity utilisation rate of 79 % in the investigation period and that many import sources exist users have various sources available to them and there is no reason to believe that they cannot switch supplier.
Čeprav začasnih težav s preskrbo ni mogoče izključiti, je malo verjetno, da bi ukrepi povzročili splošno pomanjkanje, saj zmogljivost industrije Unije ni polno izkoriščena in industrija lahko v primeru povečanja naročil poveča proizvodnjo.
Although temporary supply problems cannot be ruled out, it is unlikely that the measures would generate a general shortfall because the Union industry is not at full capacity and can increase production if orders increase.
Združenje ISTA in Electrolux sta trdila, da bi se zaradi uvedbe ukrepov povečali stroški uporabnikov.
ISTA and Electrolux claimed that costs of users would increase if measures were imposed.
Vendar glavne industrije, ki so končni uporabniki izdelkov, v preiskavi niso sodelovale.
However, the main user industries did not cooperate with the investigation.
Dejansko nobena družba ni predložila podatkov, ki bi dokazovali, da bi uvedene dajatve na zadevni izdelek močno povečale stroške končnih izdelkov ali povzročile pomembno zmanjšanje dobička.
In fact no company provided data to demonstrate that duties imposed on the product concerned would substantially increase the cost of their finished products or cause an important reduction of profits.
Zato se ta trditev zavrne kot neutemeljena.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as unfounded.
Družba Electrolux je trdila še, da bi ob vsakršnem povišanju cen zadevnega izdelka/podobnega izdelka, ki bi ga povzročila ta preiskava, postala manj konkurenčna v primerjavi s proizvajalci gospodinjskih predmetov v tretjih državah.
Electrolux also claimed that any rise in prices of the product concerned/like product caused by this investigation would make them less competitive as compared to other household goods producers in third countries.
Vendar se je zviševanje cen začelo v obdobju preiskave in se dogaja po vsem svetu ter torej ni povezano samo s to preiskavo.
However, increases in prices started in the investigation period and are taking place worldwide and are therefore not solely related to this investigation.
Ob tem pa ni mogoče izključiti, da lahko uvedba dajatev povzroči določeno izgubo konkurenčnosti.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that some loss of competitiveness may result from the imposition of duties.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, niti družba Electrolux niti noben drug proizvajalec gospodinjskih predmetov ni predložil izpolnjenega vprašalnika ali kakršnih koli informacij o pomenu vrst jekla, odpornih proti koroziji, za končno ceno svojih izdelkov.
However, as explained above neither Electrolux nor any other manufacturer of household goods provided a questionnaire reply or any information regarding the importance of CRS in the final cost of their products.
Zato je ta trditev zavrnjena, saj ni bila ustrezno utemeljena.
Therefore, this claim was rejected as it was not substantiated.
V vsakem primeru obstajajo različni viri dobave za zadevni izdelek, kot je navedeno zgoraj.
In any case as mentioned above various sources of supply exist for the product concerned.
Na podlagi navedenega in ker ni bilo drugih pripomb, se sklep, da ni utemeljenih razlogov, ki bi dokazovali, da uvedba ukrepov iz uvodnih izjav od 157 do 160 začasne uredbe ni v interesu Unije, potrdi.
On the basis of the above, and in absence of other comments, the conclusion that there are no compelling reasons proving that it is not in the interest of the Union to impose the measures in recitals 157 to 160 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
UPOŠTEVANJE RETROAKTIVNE UVEDBE UKREPOV
CONSIDERATION OF RETROACTIVE IMPOSITION OF THE MEASURES
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 4 zgoraj, je bila za uvoz zadevnega izdelka obvezna registracija od 8. julija 2017 do datuma uvedbe začasnih ukrepov, tj. 11. avgusta 2017, z možnostjo retroaktivne uvedbe ukrepov na registrirani uvoz.
As mentioned at recital 4 above imports of the product concerned were subject to registration from 8 July 2017 until the date of the imposition of provisional measures on 11 August 2017 with a view of the possible imposing measures retroactively on the registered imports.
V zaključni fazi preiskave so bili podatki, zbrani v okviru te registracije, ocenjeni in opravljena je bila analiza, ali so merila za retroaktivno uvedbo ukrepov iz člena 10(4) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena.
During the definitive stage of the investigation, the data collected in the context of the registration was assessed and it was analysed whether the criteria under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation are met for the retroactive imposition of measures.
V času registracije uvoza so razpoložljivi podatki na ravni oznake KN pokazali, da se je uvoz močno povečal.
At the time of Registration of imports the data available, on a CN code level, showed that a substantial rise in imports had taken place.
Vendar je Komisija pozneje dobila na voljo podatke na ravni oznake TARIC, ki so kazali, da po ravni uvoza v obdobju preiskave ni bilo večjega dodatnega povečanja uvoza.
However, subsequently data became available to the Commission on TARIC level which demonstrated that no further substantial rise in imports took place following the level of imports during the investigation period.
Zato ta pogoj iz člena 10(4)(d) ni izpolnjen.
Therefore, this condition under Article 10(4)(d) is not met.
Poleg tega proučitev dejavnikov škode industrije Unije ni pokazala nobenih dokazov o oslabitvi popravljalnega učinka ukrepov v obdobju po obdobju preiskave.
Further, an examination of the injury factors of the Union industry showed no evidence that the remedial effect of the measures was being undermined in the post-IP period.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da to merilo ni bilo izpolnjeno.
It was therefore concluded that this criterion was not met.
Na podlagi navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da retroaktivna uvedba ukrepov v tem primeru ni utemeljena.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the retroactive imposition of the measures is not justified in this case.
DOKONČNI PROTIDAMPINŠKI UKREPI
DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
Stopnja odprave škode
Injury elimination level
Po začasnem razkritju so nekatere strani nasprotovale ciljnemu dobičku v višini 7,4 %, ki je bil v začasni fazi uporabljen za izračun stopnje škode.
Following provisional disclosure, certain parties objected to the 7,4 % target profit used for the calculation of the injury margin at provisional stage.
To je bil dejansko ustvarjeni dobiček industrije Unije v letu 2008, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 164 začasne uredbe.
This was the profit actually achieved by the Union industry in 2008, as explained in recital 164 of the provisional Regulation.
Eurofer meni, da je bil ciljni dobiček prenizek, saj se je v zadnjem četrtletju leta 2008 začela finančna kriza.
Eurofer considered the target profit too low because the final quarter of 2008 was the start of the financial crisis.
Kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da je bil ciljni dobiček 7,4 % previsok in da bi bilo treba uporabiti informacije iz drugih virov, kot so prejšnji protidampinški primeri ali podatkovna zbirka BACH.
The Chinese exporting producers argued that 7,4 % was too high and that information should have been used from other sources such as previous anti-dumping cases or the BACH database.
Šteje se, da bi bilo vsakršno zmanjšanje dobičkonosnosti v zadnjem četrtletju leta 2008 večinoma vidno v letu 2009.
It is considered that any deterioration of profitability in the final quarter of 2008 would be mainly felt in 2009.
Poleg tega, ker številka temelji na dejanskih podatkih o dobičkonosnosti zadevnega izdelka, so to najboljši podatki, ki so v ta namen na voljo.
Furthermore, as the figure is based on actual profitability data for the product concerned, it is the best information available for this purpose.
Druge informacije, ki bi bile v nasprotju z analizo in sklepom iz uvodne izjave 164 začasne uredbe, niso bile na voljo.
No other information was available to call into question the analysis and conclusion in recital 164 of the provisional Regulation.
Poleg tega preverjanje v podatkovni zbirki BACH (ali v katerem koli drugem zunanjem viru) ni bilo potrebno, saj so bili v okviru preiskave na voljo preverjeni podatki za industrijo Unije.
Furthermore, consultation of the BACH database (or any other external source) was not necessary because verified specific data for the Union industry was available in the framework of the investigation.
Zato je 7,4-odstotna dobičkonosnost, dosežena leta 2008, še vedno reprezentativna za namene te preiskave, uvodne izjave 162 do 165 začasne uredbe pa se potrdijo.
Therefore the profitability of 7,4 % achieved in 2008 remains representative for the purpose of this investigation and recitals 162 to 165 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je v svojem odgovoru na dokončno razkritje predložil pripombe glede ciljnega dobička.
An exporting producer commented on target profit in its response to the definitive disclosure.
Trdil je, da leto 2008 ni bilo reprezentativno za določitev ciljnega dobička, saj mu je sledilo več let, ko je industrija Unije trpela zaradi različnih vzročnih dejavnikov.
The claim is that 2008 was not a representative year for the determination of target profit because that year was followed by several years during which the Union industry suffered from various causation factors.
Ker se razmere iz leta 2008 pozneje niso ponovile, izbira ciljnega dobička na podlagi leta 2008 ni reprezentativna in njena uporaba vzbuja sum, da je Komisija dampinškemu uvozu pripisala škodo, ki so jo povzročili drugi dejavniki.
As the situation of 2008 did not repeat itself afterwards, the choice of a target profit based on 2008 is judged to be unrepresentative and using it creates the suspicion that the Commission attributed injury caused by other factors to the dumped imports.
Ker je bilo leto 2008 prvo leto pred gospodarsko krizo, ga je Komisija štela za reprezentativnega in menila, da se lahko v njem ustvarjen dobiček šteje kot dobiček, ustvarjen v odsotnosti dampinškega uvoza in drugih dejavnikov, kot je gospodarska kriza.
Because 2008 was the first year prior to the economic crisis, the Commission considered it to be a representative year, the profit of which can be considered to be the one that was established in the absence of dumped imports and in the absence of other factors such as the economic crisis.
Z uporabo tega ciljnega dobička se torej škoda, ki jo je povzročila kriza, ne pripiše dampinškemu uvozu, prav nasprotno.
The use of such target profit therefore does not attribute injury caused by the crisis to the dumped imports, on the contrary.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
Eurofer je predložil več podatkov v podporo svoji trditvi, da leto 2008 ni bilo reprezentativno, saj je bila dobičkonosnost v zadnjem četrtletju izkrivljena zaradi finančne krize.
Eurofer provided more data to support its claim that 2008 was not a representative year because profitability in the final quarter was distorted by the financial crisis.
Ti podatki so vključevali makroekonomske podatke na začetku finančne krize, podatke, ki jih je pripravila nemška jeklarska zveza, in novinarsko poročilo grškega proizvajalca.
This related to macroeconomic data on the start of the financial crisis and data produced by the German Steel Federation and a press report from a Greek producer.
Vendar je Komisija leto 2008 uporabila za reprezentativno v prejšnjih protidampinških primerih, vključno s hladno valjanimi ploščatimi jeklenimi izdelki, ki so v prodajni verigi pred vrstami jekla, odpornimi proti koroziji.
However, the Commission has used 2008 as a representative year in previous anti-dumping cases including Cold Rolled Flat Steel Products which is the upstream product to CRS.
Komisija je menila, da bi bil vpliv finančne krize na dobičkonosnost viden predvsem v letu 2009.
The Commission position was that the impact of the financial crisis on profitability would be mainly felt in 2009.
Čeprav je bil konec leta 2008 morda viden določen učinek na dobičkonosnost, Komisija meni, da je bilo leto 2008 kot celota reprezentativno.
Although some impact on profitability might have been felt at the end of 2008, the Commission was satisfied that 2008 was a representative year when taken as a whole.
Več proizvajalcev izvoznikov je oporekalo uporabi člena 2(9) osnovne uredbe pri izračunu škode, pri čemer so navedli, da je ta določba v poglavju o dampingu osnovne uredbe in je zato ni mogoče po analogiji uporabiti za izračun škode.
Several exporting producers challenged the application of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation to the injury calculations, stating that this provision is under the dumping section of the basic Regulation and could not be used by analogy for calculating injury.
Trdili so, da bi morala ustrezna cena, ki bi jo bilo treba uporabiti, temeljiti na ceni, ki so jo povezani uvozniki v Uniji dejansko zaračunali prvim neodvisnim strankam v Uniji.
They argued that the relevant price to be used should be based on the price actually charged by the related importers in the Union to the first independent customers in the Union.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 166 začasne uredbe, je izračun stopnje škode temeljil na uvozni ceni na ravni meja Unije, prilagojeni na raven, primerljivo s ceno franko tovarna industrije Unije.
As explained in recital 166 of the provisional regulation, the calculation of the injury margin is based on the import price at the Union frontier level brought to a level comparable to the Union industry ex-works price.
Če je prodaja potekala prek povezanih uvoznikov, je treba uvozno ceno konstruirati na podlagi cene pri nadaljnji prodaji prvi neodvisni stranki, kot je ustrezno prilagojena, tako da se izključijo stroški uvoza ter prodajni, splošni in administrativni stroški ter dobiček povezanih uvoznikov in je cena zanesljiva.
If sales are made via related importers, the import price has to be constructed on the basis of the resale price to the first independent customer, duly adjusted, so that any importation costs and for SGA and profit of related importers are duly excluded and the price is reliable.
To je pravzaprav razlog za konstruiranje izvozne cene v skladu s členom 2(9) osnovne uredbe.
This is indeed the rationale for construction of the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
Ni razloga, zakaj isti razlog za konstruiranje izvozne cene kot pri prodaji prek povezanih uvoznikov ne bi mogel veljati tudi za uvozno ceno pri povezani prodaji za namene izračuna škode.
There is no reason why the same rationale for construction of the export price in case of sales via related importers would not be valid for the import price in case of related sales for the purposes of the injury calculations.
Nenazadnje se stopnje dampinga in škode primerjajo za uporabo pravila nižje dajatve iz člena 7(2) in člena 9(4) osnovne uredbe.