natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As explained in recitals 46 and 65 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission considered that the amount for profit could not be based on the actual data of the sampled companies in Indonesia.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 46 in 65 začasne uredbe, je Komisija menila, da za Indonezijo zneska za dobiček ni mogoče utemeljiti na dejanskih podatkih vzorčenih družb.
Therefore, the amount for profit used when constructing the normal value was determined under Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the reasonable amount of profit that a young and innovative capital intensive industry of this type under normal conditions of competition in a free and open market could achieve, that is 15 % based on turnover.
Zato je bil delež dobička, uporabljen pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti, določen v skladu s členom 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe na podlagi razumnega deleža dobička, ki bi ga lahko dosegla mlada in inovativna kapitalsko intenzivna industrija te vrste pod normalnimi pogoji konkurence na prostem in odprtem trgu, in sicer je znašal 15 % na podlagi prihodkov od prodaje.
In the Argentina and Indonesia WTO cases, the determination of an amount of profit of 15 % was challenged by both countries who claimed that the amount for profit was not based on a ‘reasonable method’ as required by Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA.
V zadevah STO v zvezi z Argentino in Indonezijo sta določitev 15-odstotnega deleža dobička izpodbijali obe državi, ki sta trdili, da dobiček ne temelji na „razumni metodi“, kot se zahteva v členu 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
The WTO adjudicating bodies found in both cases that the EU had not acted inconsistently with the ADA in this respect.
Organi STO so v obeh primerih ugotovili, da EU v zvezi s tem ni ravnala neskladno s Protidampinškim sporazumom STO.
Therefore, the amount for profit used for the construction of the normal value remains 15 %.
Zato stopnja dobička, uporabljena pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti, ostaja 15 %.
One exporting producer from Indonesia, PT Cermerlang Energi Perkasa, claimed in its submission that the Commission should base its calculation on the data of the sampled producers, or in any case not automatically resort to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation.
En proizvajalec izvoznik iz Indonezije, družba PT Cermerlang Energi Perkasa, je v pripombah trdil, da bi morala Komisija za izračun uporabiti podatke vzorčenih proizvajalcev, vsekakor pa ne bi smela samodejno uporabiti člena 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Following disclosure, it repeated the claim.
Trditev je po razkritju ponovil.
However, as explained in recital 40, the WTO adjudicating bodies found that recourse by the Commission to and the application of this Article was not inconsistent with WTO rules.
Vendar so organi STO, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 40, ugotovili, da to, da je Komisija uporabila ta člen, ni bilo v neskladju s pravili STO.
Profit cap
Zgornja meja dobička
Although the WTO panel had upheld the EU's determination of the amount of profit under Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA, it did find in the Indonesia Report that, when an authority determines the profit on the basis of any other reasonable method under Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation, the ADA requires it to ensure that that profit will not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters of the same general category of products in the country.
Odbor STO je potrdil delež dobička, ki ga je EU določila na podlagi člena 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, vendar je v poročilu o Indoneziji navedel, da mora organ ob določanju dobička na podlagi katere koli druge razumne metode na podlagi člena 2(6)(c) osnovne uredbe v skladu s Protidampinškim sporazumom STO zagotoviti, da dobiček ne presega dobička, ki ga običajno dosežejo drugi izvozniki izdelkov iste splošne kategorije v državi.
In the panel's view, the EU had failed to establish such a profit cap.
Po mnenju odbora EU ni določila take zgornje meje dobička.
In order to establish the profit cap required under Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA, it needed to be determined which companies produce products that would qualify as falling within ‘the same general category’ as biodiesel.
Da bi se lahko določila zgornja meja dobička iz člena 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, je bilo treba ugotoviti, katere družbe proizvajajo izdelke, za katere bi se štelo, da spadajo v „isto splošno kategorijo“ kot biodizel.
In the Indonesia Report, the Panel noted in par.
Odbor je v poročilu o Indoneziji v odstavku 7.62 opozoril, da „člen 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO izrecno ne določa, kako mora preiskovalni organ za namene določitve ‚dobička, ki se običajno doseže‘, opredeliti, kateri izdelki spadajo v isto splošno kategorijo izdelkov.
7.62 that ‘Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA does not specify a particular requirement on an investigating authority as to how to define what products fall within the same general category of products, for purposes of determining ‘the profit normally realized’.
Strinjamo se z Evropsko unijo, da obsega izdelkov v isti splošni kategoriji ni treba oblikovati široko“.
We agree with the European Union that there is no obligation to construe the scope of products in the same general category broadly’.
V odstavku 7.63 je dodal, da lahko „po našem mnenju […] razumen in objektiven organ sklene, da je ista splošna kategorija izdelkov ožja kategorija“.
In par. 7.63 it added ‘in our view, a reasonable and objective authority may conclude that the same general category of products is a narrower category’.
Komisija je na podlagi ugotovitev poročila o Indoneziji znova preučila razpoložljive podatke, ki se lahko uporabijo za določitev zgornje meje dobička za Argentino in Indonezijo.
Based on the findings of the Indonesia report, the Commission re-examined the data available to it that can be used to determine a profit cap, both for Argentina and Indonesia.
Menila je, da ima na voljo dva sklopa podatkov, ki bi spadala v isto splošno kategorijo izdelkov.
It considered that there are two sets of data available to it that would fall in the same general category of products.
Prvi sklop podatkov so predložile vzorčene družbe med prvotno preiskavo.
The first set of data was supplied by the sampled companies during the original investigation.
V členu 2.2.2 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO je navedeno, da je delež dobička za „izvoznika ali proizvajalca v preiskavi“ na podlagi člena 2.2.2(iii) navzgor omejen z deležem dobička, ki ga običajno dosežejo „drugi izvozniki ali proizvajalci s prodajo izdelkov iste splošne kategorije“.
Article 2.2.2 ADA provides that the amount for profit for ‘the exporter or producer under investigation’ is capped under Article 2.2.2(iii) by the amount of profit normally realized by ‘other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category’.
Najožja razlaga iste splošne kategorije izdelkov na podlagi tega člena bi bila omejena na povsem enak izdelek, tj. biodizel.
The narrowest interpretation of the same general category of products under this article would be limited to the exact same product, i.e. biodiesel.
Podatki, potrebni za izračun zgornje meje dobička na podlagi dobička, ki so ga dosegli proizvajalci biodizla v Indoneziji in Argentini, so Komisiji že na voljo, saj so ji jih med prvotno preiskavo predložile vzorčene družbe.
The data needed to calculate the profit cap based on the profits realised by producers of biodiesel in Indonesia and Argentina are readily available to the Commission, as they were supplied to the Commission by the sampled companies during the original investigation.
Dejstvo, da se dobiček, ki so ga vzorčene družbe dejansko dosegle, ni uporabil za določitev stopnje dobička za vsakega od teh proizvajalcev na podlagi člena 2(6) osnovne uredbe, Komisiji ne preprečuje, da bi te podatke uporabila za določitev zgornje meje dobička na podlagi člena 2(6)(c).
The fact that the profits actually realized by the sampled companies were not used to establish a profit margin for each of these producers under Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation does not preclude the Commission from using this data to establish the profit cap under Article 2(6)(c).
To izhaja iz besedila v odstavku 7.65 poročila o Indoneziji, kjer se odbor ne strinja s trditvijo, da „dobiček, ki se običajno doseže“, v členu 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO pomeni, da preiskovalcu ni treba upoštevati dobička, doseženega pri prodaji, ki se ne šteje za skladno z običajno poslovno prakso.
This follows from the wording of the Panel in the Indonesia Report in par.
En indonezijski proizvajalec izvoznik, družba PT Cermerlang Energi Perkasa, je v pripombah trdil tudi, da Komisija na podlagi poročila o Indoneziji pri izračunu zgornje meje dobička ne sme zanemariti dobička, povezanega z domačo prodajo biodizla v Indoneziji, na podlagi trditve, da se zanjo ne šteje, da se izvaja v običajnem poteku trgovine.
7.65 where the Panel does not agree with the argument that ‘profit normally realized’ in Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA means that an investigator may disregard the profit realized on sales that are considered not compatible with normal commercial practice.
Komisija je v skladu s to ozko razlago kategorije izdelkov, ki je torej biodizel, zgornjo mejo dobička za posameznega proizvajalca izračunala z uporabo deleža dobička, ki so ga dosegli drugi proizvajalci v preiskavi.
One Indonesian exporting producer, PT Cermerlang Energi Perkasa, also claimed in its submission that based on the Indonesia Report, when calculating the profit cap, the Commission is not allowed to ignore the profit relating to the domestic sales of biodiesel in Indonesia on the basis that the latter are not considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade.
Da bi se na primer izračunal delež dobička za indonezijskega proizvajalca Wilmar, se je uporabilo tehtano povprečje dobička, ki so ga dosegli drugi preverjeni indonezijski proizvajalci v preiskavi, in sicer družbe P.T.
Following this narrow interpretation of the category of products, biodiesel, the Commission calculated the profit cap for an individual producer using the amount of profit realized by the other producers under investigation.
Musim Mas in P.T.
Musim Mas and P.T.
Za družbo P.T.
Pelita was used.
Ciliandra je bilo po drugi strani uporabljeno tehtano povprečje dobička, ki so ga dosegle družbe Wilmar, P.T.
Conversely, for P.T.
Ta metodologija je bila uporabljena tudi za izračun zgornje meje dobička za preverjene argentinske proizvajalce v preiskavi.
Ciliandra, the weighted average of profits realised by Wilmar, P.T.
Drugi sklop podatkov vključuje podatke proizvajalcev, ki niso bili vključeni v preiskavo, Komisiji pa so bili ti podatki predloženi med prvotno preiskavo.
The same methodology was used to calculate a profit cap for the investigated and verified Argentinian producers.
Eden od indonezijskih proizvajalcev iz takratne preiskave je predložil podatke povezane družbe o prodaji mešanic biodizla in mineralnega dizla ter prodaji dizelskega goriva in kurilnega olja za plovila („druga goriva“).
The second set of data includes the data of producers other than those under investigation that was provided to the Commission during the original investigation.
Sporočena stopnja dobička, povezana s to prodajo, je bila 10,2-odstotna.
One of the Indonesian producers under investigation at that time came forward with data from a related company on sales of blends of biodiesel and mineral diesel, as well as sales of diesel fuel and marine fuel oil (‘other fuels’).
Če bi se ta stopnja dobička uporabila kot zgornja meja dobička, verjetno za vse družbe v Indoneziji ne bi bil ugotovljen damping ali pa bi bile ugotovljene stopnje dampinga de minimis.
The profit margin related to these sales was reported to be 10,2 %.
Vendar so bili ti nepreverjeni podatki predloženi le za enega proizvajalca iz Indonezije, drugi proizvajalci iz Indonezije ali Argentine pa Komisiji niso predložili podobnih podatkov.
If used as a profit cap, this profit margin would have likely led to no or de minimis dumping margins for all companies in Indonesia.
Ker razpoložljivih podatkov zato ni mogoče dosledno uporabiti za obe državi, po mnenju Komisije ne bi bilo primerno, da bi se za določitev zgornje meje dobička uporabili podatki enega samega proizvajalca iz ene države.
However, this unverified data was provided for only one producer in Indonesia, while similar data was not made available to the Commission from other producers in either Indonesia or Argentina.
Poleg tega v času, ki je bil Komisiji na voljo po ponovnem začetku preiskave, ni bilo mogoče preveriti točnosti predloženih podatkov in osnovnih izračunov.
As the data available can therefore not be applied in a consistent manner to both countries, the Commission considered it inappropriate to use the data from only one producer in one country to establish a profit cap.
V vsakem primeru, glede na to, da je v uvodni izjavi 62 ugotovljeno, da je stopnja dampinga za celotno državo de minimis, in da se zato preiskava zaključi za vse družbe, Komisija meni, da uporaba nepreverjenih sporočenih podatkov o dobičku pri prodaji mešanic biodizla z mineralnim oljem, da se vzpostavi zgornja meja dobička, ni bila potrebna.
In addition, within the time available to the Commission following the re-opening of the investigation it was not feasible to verify the accuracy of the data provided and the underlying calculations.
Komisiji se je zato zdelo bolj primerno uporabiti podatke, ki so bili predloženi in preverjeni med prvotno preiskavo.
In any event, since as found in recital 62 the amount of dumping for the country as a whole is found to be de minimis and, accordingly, the investigation is terminated for all companies, the Commission did not deem it necessary to use the unverified reported profit data on sales of blends of biodiesel with mineral diesel for the purpose of establishing a profit cap.
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz Indonezije, družbi Wilmar in PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, pa tudi indonezijski organi so trdili, da je polje proste presoje Komisije pri izbiri podatkov za določitev zgornje meje dobička omejeno z ugotovitvami odbora v poročilu o Indoneziji.
The Commission instead considered it more appropriate to rely on the data that was provided and verified during the original investigation.
Po razkritju je družba Wilmar ponovno poudarila navedeno točko.
Two exporting producers in Indonesia, Wilmar and PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, as well as the authorities of Indonesia claimed that the discretion of the Commission in choosing the data in order to determine a profit cap is limited by the findings of the Panel in the Indonesia Report.
Po mnenju teh zainteresiranih strani mora Komisija uporabiti stopnje dobička pri prodaji mešanic biodizla z mineralnim oljem ali dobiček, dosežen pri prodaji dizelskega goriva in kurilnega olja za plovila.
Following disclosure, Wilmar reiterated that point.
Vendar v poročilu o Indoneziji ni ničesar, kar bi Komisiji preprečevalo uporabo drugih razpoložljivih ustreznih podatkov.
According to these interested parties, the Commission must use either the profit amounts on sales of blends of biodiesel with mineral diesel or the profits obtained on sales of diesel fuels and marine fuel oil.
Odbor v odstavku 7.70 navaja, da bi „organi EU […] lahko to prodajo uporabili za določitev zgornje meje dobička,“ v odstavku 7.72 pa, da bi „organi EU […] morali za določitev zgornje meje dobička uporabiti prodajo dizelskega goriva in kurilnega olja za plovila družbe [[***]]“.
However, nothing in the Indonesia Report prevents the Commission from using other available relevant data.
Iz besed „lahko“ in „morali“, ki ju je odbor uporabil v poročilu o Indoneziji, je razvidno, da bi po njegovem mnenju Komisija morala preučiti, ali bi se ti podatki lahko uporabili za določitev zgornje meje dobička, ne pa da teh informacij ni upoštevala zaradi nepravilne razlage izraza „dobiček, ki se običajno doseže“.
The Panel states in par.
Ta prodaja se je zdaj preučila v uvodni izjavi 49, pri čemer se uporaba te določene prodaje ni štela niti za ustrezno niti za nujno.
7.70 that the ‘EU authorities could have considered these sales for the determination of the profit cap’ and in par.
EBB je v pripombah predložil drugi sklop podatkov, ki bi jih Komisija lahko uporabila za izračun zgornje meje dobička.
7.72 that ‘the EU authorities should have considered sales of diesel fuels and marine fuel oil by [[***]] to determine the profit cap.’
Ti podatki so se nanašali na tri družbe, ki zadevnega izdelka v obdobju preiskave niso proizvajale ali prodajale v eni od držav, ki sta bili predmet preiskave.
The use of the words ‘could’ and ‘should’ by the Panel in the Indonesia Report indicates that the Panel believes the Commission had to consider whether these data could be used to establish a profit cap or not, rather than disregarding that information based on an incorrect interpretation of the phrase ‘profits normally realized’.
Na podlagi javno dostopnih informacij in informacij, ki sta jih predložila dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz Indonezije, je postalo jasno, da te tri družbe nimajo sedeža v Indoneziji, temveč v Maleziji in Singapurju.
The consideration of these sales has now been done in recital 49, and the use of these particular sales was neither considered appropriate, nor necessary.
Podatki, ki jih je predložil EBB, so bili zbirni podatki iz letnih poročil in/ali objave rezultatov zadevnih družb, predstavljajo pa stopnje dobička za morda raznovrstne izdelke in povezane družbe.
In its submissions, EBB provided an alternative set of data which the Commission could use to calculate a profit cap.
Komisiji se ti podatki niso zdeli primerni za določitev zgornje stopnje dobička.
These data concerned three companies that did not produce or sell the product concerned in one of the countries under investigation during the investigation period.
Glavni izdelki teh družb so palmovo olje in izdelki, kot so maščobne kisline, glicerin, gnojila, sladkor in melasa, stearin, kakavovo maslo ali oleokemikalije.
Based on publicly available information and information provided by two of the exporting producers in Indonesia, it became clear that all three companies are not based in Indonesia but instead in Malaysia and Singapore.
Nekatere družbe zagotavljajo tudi nepovezane storitve, kot so upravljanje stanovanjskih nepremičnin, upravljanje denarnih sredstev ali vzdrževanje v železniškem prometu.
The data provided by EBB was aggregated data taken from annual reports and/or results announcement of the relevant companies and represents profit margins for possibly a wide range of products and related companies.
Za izdelke teh družb se ne more šteti, da spadajo v isto splošno kategorijo izdelkov kot zadevni izdelek, tj. biodizel.
The Commission did not agree that these data are appropriate to determine a profit cap.
To velja zlasti za palmovo olje, saj gre za surovino, ki se uporablja kot glavna vhodna surovina za proizvodnjo biodizla.
The main products of these companies are palm oil and products such as fatty acids, glycerine, fertilizers, sugar and molasses, stearin, cocoa butter or oleo chemicals.
Komisija meni, da bi se navedena kategorija razlagala preširoko, če bi se ta izdelek vključil v isto splošno kategorijo kot biodizel.
Some companies also provide unrelated services such as the operation of residential properties, treasury management or railroad maintenance.
Komisija je zato zavrnila uporabo predlaganih podatkov.
The products of these companies cannot be considered to fall within the same general category of products as the product concerned, biodiesel.
V nedavno zaključeni protidampinški preiskavi o uvozu biodizla iz Indonezije v Združene države so organi Združenih držav izračunali stopnjo dobička v višini 6,15 %.
This is especially the case for the product palm oil, as this is the raw material used as main input for the production of biodiesel.
Komisija je preučila, ali bi se ta številka lahko uporabila kot zgornja meja dobička.
The Commission considers that including this product in the same general category as biodiesel would entail a too broad interpretation of that category.
Ker pa je izhajala iz računovodskih izkazov proizvajalca s sedežem v Nemčiji, Komisija teh podatkov prav tako ni mogla uporabiti.
The Commission therefore rejected the use of the proposed data.
Skratka, metodologija iz uvodnih izjav 46 do 48 sledi logiki iz člena 2.2.2(iii) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO in uporablja podatke, ki so Komisiji znani in so ji na voljo v spisu, zaradi česar ni potrebe po nadaljnji preiskavi.
However, given that it was derived from the financial statements of a producer based in Germany, it could not use these data either.
Tehtano povprečje katere koli kombinacije teh stopenj dobička bi zato prav tako privedlo do zgornje meje dobička, višje od 15 %.
In conclusion, the methodology set out in recitals 46 to 48 follows the logic of Article 2.2.2(iii) ADA and uses the data known and available on file to the Commission, without the need for further investigation.
To pomeni, da je 15-odstotna stopnja dobička, določena v prvotni preiskavi, nižja od posameznih zgornjih mej dobička, zato je to stopnja dobička, ki jo je treba uporabiti za izračune stopenj dampinga.
It is therefore considered that this methodology is the most appropriate in this case.
Kar zadeva Indonezijo, so bile stopnje dobička, ki so jih dejansko dosegli proizvajalci v preiskavi, prav tako višje od 15 % za vse družbe razen ene.
Using this methodology yields the following results.
Ker se za izračun posameznih zgornjih mej dobička uporablja tehtano povprečje, ta stopnja dobička, nižja od 15 %, za nekatere proizvajalce privede do zgornjih mej dobička, nižjih od 15 %, zato je treba nekatere stopnje dobička, uporabljene za izračun stopenj dampinga, prilagoditi navzdol.
For Argentina, all producers involved had an actual profit margin above the 15 % that, as explained in recitals 39 and 40, was used in the original investigation.
Za eno družbo je bila zgornja meja dobička višja od 15 %, kar pomeni, da je še vedno treba uporabiti 15-odstotno stopnjo dobička.
A weighted average of any combination of these profit margins would therefore also always yield a profit cap of above 15 %.
Zgornje meje dobička za ostale tri družbe so nižje od 15 %, kar pomeni, da stopnje dobička, uporabljene za izračun normalne vrednosti, ne morejo biti višje od navedene zgornje meje.
This means the 15 % profit margin that was determined in the original investigation is below the individual profit caps and is therefore the profit margin to be used for the calculations of the dumping margins.
Z uporabo te metodologije so bili izračunani rezultati, navedeni v nadaljevanju.
For Indonesia, the profit margins actually achieved by the producers under investigation were also above 15 % for all except for one company.
Preglednica 1
As a weighted average is used to calculate the individual profit caps, this profit margin of below 15 % leads to profit caps for some producers that are below 15 %, and therefore necessitate a downward adjustment of some of the profit margins used for the calculation of the dumping margins.
Družba
The other three companies have profit caps below 15 %, which means the profit margins used to calculate normal value cannot be higher than that cap.
Dvojno upoštevanje
The application of the methodology leads to the following results:
Odbor je v poročilu o Indoneziji ugotovil, da EU ni konstruirala izvozne cene enega indonezijskega proizvajalca izvoznika, tj. družbe P.T.
Table 1
Musim Mas, prvič nadalje prodan neodvisnim kupcem v EU, kot se zahteva v členu 2.3 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
Company
Določena vrsta biodizla (biodizel na osnovi destilata maščobnih kislin palmovega olja) se lahko zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznih ciljev EU glede mešanja biodizla „upošteva dvakrat“.
Profit margin
Zato morajo pripravljavci mešanic v EU uporabiti samo polovico te vrste biodizla, da bi izpolnili obvezne cilje EU glede mešanja biodizla.
Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia, Medan; P.T.
Ker je ta vrsta biodizla zato za kupce dragocenejša, lahko njen proizvajalec stranki zaračuna premijo.
Double Counting
V tem posebnem primeru se vprašanje dvojnega upoštevanja nanaša na določen izvoz družbe P.T.