natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As stated in recital 9, the Court of First Instance in the Industrie des poudres sphériques 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 9, je Splošno sodišče v zadevi Industrie des poudres sphériques 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 judgment, this implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts.
Ker so institucije Unije dolžne upoštevati sodbo, obstaja možnost, da se odpravijo le tisti vidiki izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do njene razveljavitve, neizpodbijani deli pa ostanejo nespremenjeni.
Both claims were therefore rejected.
Obe trditvi sta bili zato zavrnjeni.
The complainant in the original investigation, Eurofer, submitted that the most appropriate action for the Commission would be to expand its reasoning on the specific points identified by the General Court in the judgment and re-impose the definitive anti-dumping duty.
Eurofer, vložnik iz prvotne preiskave, je trdil, da bi bilo najustrezneje, da Komisija podrobneje razloži konkretne točke, ki jih je Splošno sodišče opredelilo v sodbi, in ponovno uvede dokončno protidampinško dajatev.
ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT
OCENA PO SODBI
In its first plea before the General Court, Viraj alleged manifest errors in the calculation of its costs of production and a breach of the obligation to state reasons.
V prvem argumentu pred Splošnim sodiščem je družba Viraj trdila, da so bile pri izračunu proizvodnih stroškov očitne napake ter da je bila kršena obveznost navedbe razlogov.
The judgment rejected both the second and the third plea, respectively alleging errors made in the assessment of the causal link and alleging that the complaint did not contain the required evidence.
Sodišče je v svoji sodbi zavrnilo drugi in tretji argument, pri čemer je glede drugega argumenta trdilo, da je pri oceni vzročne zveze prišlo do napak, glede tretjega pa, da pritožba ni vsebovala zahtevanih dokazov.
The arguments relating to the first plea were divided in two parts.
Razlogi v zvezi s prvim argumentom so bili razdeljeni na dva dela.
In the first part, Viraj claimed that the Union institutions erred while applying an upward adjustment to the costs of production.
V prvem delu je družba Viraj trdila, da so institucije Unije storile napako, ko so proizvodne stroške prilagodile navzgor.
In the second part, it claimed that certain selling, general and administrative (‘SGA’) costs were incorrectly taken into account or double-counted.
V drugem delu je družba trdila, da so bili nekateri prodajni, splošni in administrativni stroški (v nadaljnjem besedilu: stroški PSA) nepravilno upoštevani ali so se šteli dvakrat.
The General Court upheld the first part of the first plea in that the institutions infringed their obligation to state reasons.
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo prvi del prvega argumenta, in sicer da so institucije kršile svojo obveznost navedbe razlogov.
The second part of the first plea was rejected.
Drugi del prvega argumenta je bil zavrnjen.
As a consequence, for the purpose of complying with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European, the Commission addressed the first part of the first plea, namely the lack of reasoning regarding the assessment of costs of production.
Posledično je zaradi skladnosti s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije Komisija obravnavala prvi del prvega argumenta, zlasti pomanjkanje obrazložitve v zvezi z oceno proizvodnih stroškov.
The methodology used for the determination of cost of production
Uporabljena metodologija za določitev proizvodnih stroškov
The Commission, in line with Viraj's cost accounting methodology, established the manufacturing costs of production following a 3-step approach, corresponding to the steps in the production process of stainless steel wire.
Komisija je v skladu z metodologijo analitičnega računovodstva družbe Viraj določila proizvodne stroške tako, da je uporabila pristop treh korakov, ki ustrezajo korakom proizvodnega postopka žice iz nerjavnega jekla.
The first step consisted of the determination of the manufacturing cost of production of stainless steel billets.
V prvem koraku so bili določeni stroški proizvodnje drogov iz nerjavnega jekla.
In the Profit and Loss account of Viraj's published annual accounts, the cost of materials consumed, which consists of stainless steel scrap, nickel, ferro-chrome, silicon and other materials for producing billets from steel scrap, indicated an average cost that was found to be in line with the average raw material cost reported in the questionnaire reply, which was therefore considered reliable.
V izkazu poslovnega izida in bilanci stanja objavljenih letnih računovodskih izkazov družbe Viraj je bila povprečna vrednost stroškov uporabljenih materialov, ki so jih sestavljali nerjavno odpadno jeklo, nikelj, ferokrom, silicij in drugi materiali za proizvodnjo drogov iz odpadnega jekla, v skladu s povprečnimi stroški surovin, kot so bili navedeni v odgovoru na vprašalnik, zato so se ti stroški šteli za zanesljive.
To the raw material costs of stainless steel billets, the following processing costs were added: auxiliary materials, direct labour, energy, depreciation and other costs; in order to determine the total stainless steel billet manufacturing cost per tonne.
K stroškom surovin drogov iz nerjavnega jekla so bili dodani naslednji stroški predelave: pomožni materiali, neposredna delovna sila, energija, amortizacija in drugi stroški; da bi dobili skupne stroške proizvodnje drogov iz nerjavnega jekla na tono.
In the second step, costs were added to transform the stainless steel billet into stainless steel wire rod, and the average raw material cost, mainly consisting of the cost of stainless steel billets already accounted for, was determined.
V drugem koraku so bili dodani stroški za preoblikovanje drogov iz nerjavnega jekla v jeklo za žice iz nerjavnega jekla ter določeni povprečni stroški surovin, ki v glavnem sestojijo iz stroškov drogov iz nerjavnega jekla, ki so že bili upoštevani.
To this raw material cost of wire rod, the same type of processing costs were added (auxiliary materials, direct labour, energy, depreciation and other costs) establishing the total cost of wire rod per tonne.
K stroškom surovin za jeklo za žice je bila dodana enaka vrsta stroškov predelave (pomožni materiali, neposredna delovna sila, energija, amortizacija in drugi stroški) in tako so bili določeni skupni stroški jekla za žice na tono.
Taking the processing cost involved into account, the average cost of stainless steel wire was determined at a level comparable to the FIFO valuation in the annual accounts.
Zato je Komisija v zaključni fazi preiskave menila, da se sporočeni proizvodni stroški lahko sprejmejo.
This further cross-checking of the reported costs with the data contained in the published annual accounts confirmed that the data reported for manufacturing costs were reliable and that the additional explanatory reconciliations between the questionnaire reply and the internal accounting data given in this respect by Viraj based on annexes submitted during the on-site investigation could be accepted.
Vendar je bilo za stroške PSA, ki jih je navedla družba Viraj v odgovoru na vprašalnik, ugotovljeno, da so v primerjavi z ustreznimi stroški iz računovodskih izkazov podcenjeni.
Therefore, at the definitive stage of the investigation, the Commission considered that the reported manufacturing costs could be accepted.
Zato se je štelo za primerno, da se stroški PSA, kot so navedeni v letnih računovodskih izkazih, dodelijo zadevnemu izdelku na podlagi prihodkov, v skladu s členom 2(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009.
However, the SGA reported by Viraj in the questionnaire reply were found to be underreported in comparison to the corresponding costs found in the annual accounts.
Nato so bili proizvodni stroški prilagojeni tako, da so se upoštevali elementi stroškov PSA, navedeni v letnih računovodskih izkazih, ki pa niso bili vključeni v proizvodne stroške, kot jih je sporočila družba Viraj.
It was therefore considered appropriate to allocate SGA as reported in the annual accounts to the product concerned based on turnover, in accordance with Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
V tem smislu so bile izvedene prilagoditve, ki so bile izražene kot prihodek od prodaje v višini 8,27 %, pri čemer se 6,27 % nanaša na stroške financiranja in 2 % na druge stroške PSA.
Subsequently, the manufacturing cost was adjusted by taking into account the elements of SGA mentioned in the annual accounts but not included in the manufacturing cost reported by Viraj.
Ustrezna prilagoditev navzgor proizvodnih stroškov je znašala 11,17 %, pri čemer se 8,47 % nanaša na stroške financiranja in 2,70 % na druge stroške PSA.
In order to achieve that, adjustments were made, expressed in terms of turnover of 8,27 % composed of 6,27 % for finance costs and 2 % for other SGA costs.
Proizvodni stroški so bili primerjani s proizvodnimi stroški, kakor jih je sporočila družba Viraj, in sicer po odbitku stroškov za embalažo.
The equivalent adjustment of the manufacturing cost amounted to 11,17 %, consisting of 8,47 % for finance costs and 2,70 % for other SGA costs.
Na navedeni podlagi je bil določen prilagoditveni faktor, ki se je uporabil za proizvodne stroške za posamezno vrsto izdelka, kot jih je sporočila družba Viraj.
The manufacturing cost was compared to the manufacturing cost reported by Viraj, after deduction of the packaging material cost.
Trditve pred Splošnim sodiščem
On that basis, an adjustment factor was determined and was applied to the manufacturing cost per product type reported by Viraj.
Družba Viraj je trdila, da bi morale institucije Unije dosledno uporabljati povprečne stroške, kot so navedeni v odgovoru na vprašalnik, in sicer z izključitvijo stroškov embalaže in delovne sile, uporabljene za pakiranje, ali z vključitvijo vseh stroškov pakiranja.
Claims before the General Court
Splošno sodišče je v točkah od 135 do 140 sodbe menilo, da institucije Unije niso pojasnile, zakaj so bili proizvodni stroški izračunani tako, da so bili izključeni stroški pakiranja, namesto, da bi se upoštevali stroški, kot jih je sporočila družba Viraj.
Viraj claimed that the Union institutions should have consistently used the average cost as reported in its questionnaire reply, either excluding material packaging costs and packing labour or including all packaging costs.
Glede odstotkov, ki so bili dodani k proizvodnim stroškom, je Splošno sodišče v točki 141 sodbe ugotovilo, da zgolj sklicevanje na številke brez dodatne razlage ni zadostovalo, saj se ni razumelo, kateri odstotki so bili dejansko uporabljeni za druge stroške in stroške financiranja.
In paragraphs 135 to 140 of its judgment, the General Court held that the Union institutions did not provide any explanation as to why the cost of manufacturing was determined excluding packaging costs instead of taking account the cost provided by Viraj.
Ponovna ocena Komisije
As regards the percentages added to the cost of manufacturing, the General Court concluded, in paragraph 141 of its judgment, that mere reference to the figures without further explanation was not sufficient to make it possible to understand which percentages were actually used for other costs and finance costs.
Komisija je ponovno ocenila določitev proizvodnih stroškov.
Re-assessment by the Commission
Komisija je ugotovila, da je treba zaradi pravilne primerjave in da bi obravnavala pomisleke Splošnega sodišča uporabiti proizvodne stroške, kakor jih je navedla družba Viraj in ki vključujejo zlasti stroške pakiranja.
The Commission re-assessed the determination of the manufacturing costs.
S to na novo izbrano podlago za nadaljnje izračune je prvi ugovor družbe Viraj glede negotovosti pri določanju proizvodnih stroškov, kateremu je nato sledilo tudi Splošno sodišče, neutemeljen.
The Commission concluded that, for reasons of correct comparison and in order to address the General Court's concerns, the costs of manufacturing as reported by Viraj, notably including packaging, should be used.
Posledično je bil prilagoditveni faktor iz uvodne izjave 34 popravljen navzdol in se je uporabil za proizvodne stroške za posamezno vrsto izdelka, kakor jih je navedla družba Viraj, pri čemer se je uporabila ista metodologija kot tista, opisana v uvodnih izjavah 33 in 34.
That reassessed choice of basis for further calculations pre-empts the first objection by Viraj and by extension by the General Court with regard to the uncertainty surrounding the determination of the manufacturing costs.
Ker je družba Viraj načeloma sprejela metodologijo, po kateri se proizvodni stroški prilagodijo tako, da se stroški PSA razporedijo na osnovi prihodka od prodaje v skladu s členom 2(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009, se šteje, da je prilagoditev proizvodnih stroškov, kakor jih je sporočila sama družba Viraj, s faktorjem, ki temelji na objavljenih letnih računovodskih izkazih družbe, popolnoma sledljiva vse do lastnih podatkov družbe Viraj.
As a consequence, the adjustment factor mentioned in recital 34 was revised downward and applied to the manufacturing costs per product type reported by Viraj, following the same methodology described in recitals 33 and 34.
Posledično je imela družba Viraj na voljo vse zahtevane informacije glede določitve proizvodnih stroškov.
Since the methodology, which consisted of adjusting the manufacturing costs by allocating SGA costs on the basis of turnover in accordance with Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, was accepted in principle by Viraj, the adjustment of the manufacturing costs reported by Viraj itself by a factor that is based on its own published annual accounts, is therefore considered to be entirely traceable back to Viraj's own data.
Po ponovnem izračunu normalne vrednosti v skladu z metodologijo, opisano v uvodnih izjavah od 25 do 33, je bila spremenjena stopnja dampinga za družbo Viraj določena na 5,3 %.
Consequently, Viraj has at its disposal all the required information regarding the determination of the manufacturing costs.
Družba Viraj je prejela podrobne individualne izračune, ki so bili uporabljeni za določitev njene spremenjene stopnje dampinga, in imela je možnost predložiti pripombe.
After the recalculation of the normal value following the methodology described in recitals 25 to 33, the revised dumping margin for Viraj was established at 5,3 %.
Navedeni ponovni izračun je bil razkrit tudi Euroferju, ki je trdil, da se družbi Viraj ne bi smela odobriti ugodna obravnava in da je znižanje stopnje dampinga zaradi neizpolnjevanja obveznosti navedbe razlogov nenavadno velikodušno.
Viraj received its individual detailed calculations used to determine its revised dumping margin and was given the opportunity to comment.
Komisija je ponovno ocenila razloge, na katerih temelji protidampinški ukrep, in ugotovila neskladnost glede svojega pristopa.
That recalculation was also disclosed to Eurofer which claimed that Viraj should not be granted a favourable treatment and that reducing the dumping margin in a context of a failure of reasoning is unusually generous.
Zato je morala ugotovitve prilagoditi dejstvom iz spisa.
The Commission re-assessed the reasoning on which the anti-dumping measure is based and found an inconsistency in its approach.
Trditev Euroferja je bila zato zavrnjena.
It was therefore obliged to adjust the findings to the objective facts in the file.
Pripombe družbe Viraj o razkritju
Eurofer's claim was therefore rejected.
Družba Viraj je sicer ponovno navedla, da ne izpodbija metodologije, ki jo je uporabila Komisija, vendar je kljub temu trdila, da bi morali navedeni stroški biti osnova, h kateri se dodajo stroški financiranja in drugi stroški PSA, saj je Komisija sprejela proizvodne stroške, kakor jih je prvotno sporočila družba.
Viraj's comments on the disclosure
Komisija je sprejela trditev in je kot osnovo za izračun prilagoditev stroškov financiranja in drugih stroškov PSA uporabila spremenjene proizvodne stroške.
Although Viraj repeated that it does not contest the methodology used by the Commission, it claimed that, as the Commission had accepted the manufacturing costs as originally reported by Viraj, those costs should also form the basis to which the finance and other SGA costs are added.
Družba Viraj je tudi trdila, da je bila prilagoditev proizvodnih stroškov navzgor za 11,17 %, pri čemer se 8,74 % nanaša na stroške financiranja in 2,70 % na druge stroške PSA, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 33, napačna.
The Commission accepted the claim and took the revised manufacturing costs as the basis for calculating the adjustments for finance and other SGA costs.
Zlasti je družba Viraj trdila, da je k imenovalcu treba dodati še druge stroške (rezervni deli in potrošni material, energija in gorivo ter stroški dela), ki jih je Komisija že obravnavala kot del proizvodnih stroškov.
Viraj also claimed that the upward adjustment of the manufacturing costs by 11,17 %, consisting of 8,74 % for finance costs and 2,70 % for other SGA costs, as described in recital 33, has been wrongly determined.
Komisija je sprejela trditev družbe Viraj in ustrezno prilagodila imenovalec.
In particular, Viraj claimed that other expenses (spares and consumables, power and fuel, and labour charges) which the Commission had already considered as a part of manufacturing costs should also be added to the denominator.
Posledično je bila prilagoditev proizvodnih stroškov navzgor določena na 9,54 %, pri čemer se 7,25 % nanaša na stroške financiranja in 2,29 % na druge stroške PSA.
The Commission accepted Viraj's claim and adjusted the denominator accordingly.
Po popravkih navedenih konceptualnih in administrativnih napak je spremenjena stopnja dampinga za družbo Viraj določena na 1,6 %.
Consequently, the upward adjustment of manufacturing cost was set at 9,54 %, consisting of 7,25 % for finance costs and 2,29 % for other SGA costs.
Glede na to, da je stopnja dampinga za družbo Viraj zdaj stopnja dampinga de minimis, se sklene, da je treba preiskavo zaključiti brez uvedbe protidampinških ukrepov v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije, ki jih proizvaja družba Viraj.
Following the corrections of those conceptual and clerical errors, the revised dumping margin Viraj is set at 1,6 %.
RAZKRITJE
Given that Viraj's dumping margin is now a de minimis dumping margin, it is concluded that the investigation should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures with regard to imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India produced by Viraj.
Komisija je zainteresirane strani obvestila o glavnih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je nameravala zaključiti preiskavo brez uvedbe dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije, ki jih proizvaja družba Viraj.
DISCLOSURE
Zainteresiranim stranem je bila dana tudi možnost, da predložijo pripombe o končnem razkritju.
The Commission informed the interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to terminate the investigation without imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India produced by Viraj.
Vse prejete pripombe so bile proučene in upoštevane, kadar je bilo to primerno.
Interested parties were also granted an opportunity to comment on the final disclosure.
Ta uredba je v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 15(1) Uredbe (EU) 2016/1035 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta –
All comments received were considered and taken into account, where appropriate.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
This regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1035 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Člen 1
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Ponovno odprtje preiskave na podlagi sodbe Splošnega sodišča z dne 11. julija 2017 v zadevi T-67/14 Viraj Profiles Ltd proti Svetu v zvezi z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 1106/2013 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije, ki jih proizvaja družba Viraj Profiles Limited, se s tem zaključi.
The re-opening of the investigation further to the judgment of 11 July 2017 by the General Court in case T-67/14 Viraj Profiles Ltd v Council in relation to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India, manufactured by Viraj Profiles Limited, is hereby terminated.
Ta sklep začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Article 2
V Bruslju, 27. septembra 2018
Done at Brussels, 27 September 2018.
Predsednik
The President
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 1106/2013 z dne 5. novembra 2013 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije (UL L 298, 8.11.2013, str. 1).
OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti (UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 51).
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (OJ L 298, 8.11.2013, p. 1).
Obvestilo o veljavnih protidampinških in izravnalnih ukrepih v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije v Unijo: sprememba imena družbe, za katero veljata individualni stopnji protidampinške in izravnalne dajatve (UL C 111, 1.4.2015, str. 5).
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51).
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1483 z dne 1. septembra 2015 o spremembi Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1106/2013 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije, po ponovni preiskavi za ugotavljanje absorpcije v skladu s členom 12 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 (UL L 228, 2.9.2015, str. 1).
Notice concerning the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of certain stainless steel wires originating in India: change of name of one company subject to an individual anti-dumping and countervailing duty rate (OJ C 111, 1.4.2015, p. 5).
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/220 z dne 8. februarja 2017 o spremembi Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1106/2013 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije po delnem vmesnem pregledu v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 34, 9.2.2017, str. 21).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1483 of 1 September 2015 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India following and absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 228, 2.9.2015, p. 1).
UL L 134, 23.5.2017, str. 52, in UL L 255, 3.10.2017, str. 32.