natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following disclosure, the applicant first claimed that the Commission failed to disclose all the elements regarding the applicant's dumping margin calculation and that would constitute a breach of its rights of defence.
Po razkritju je vložnik najprej trdil, da Komisija ni razkrila vseh elementov v zvezi z izračunom stopnje dampinga za vložnika, kar bi pomenilo kršitev njegove pravice do obrambe.
In this respect, the Commission notes that the applicant had received the General Disclosure Document detailing all considerations on the basis of which the Commission decided to terminate this investigation.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je vložnik prejel splošni dokument o razkritju, v katerem so podrobno navedeni vsi premisleki, na podlagi katerih je Komisija sklenila zaključiti to preiskavo.
This allowed the applicant to fully exercise its rights of defence.
Tako je lahko vložnik v celoti uveljavljal svoje pravice do obrambe.
Given that the Commission concluded that there was no change of circumstances of lasting nature which would justify the recalculation of the applicant's dumping margin, the argument on any possible miscalculation of the dumping margin became moot.
Glede na sklep Komisije, da ni bilo nobene trajne spremembe okoliščin, ki bi upravičevala ponovni izračun stopnje dampinga za vložnika, je postal argument o morebitnem napačnem izračunu stopnje dampinga brezpredmeten.
Thus, the claim was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
Second, the applicant contested the conclusion of the Commission regarding the absence of changes of lasting nature that could have an impact on the dumping margin.
Drugič, vložnik je izpodbijal sklep Komisije o odsotnosti trajnih sprememb, ki bi lahko vplivale na stopnjo dampinga.
The applicant claimed that the last time its individual dumping margin was established was in 2008, when Russia was not yet a WTO Member.
Vložnik je trdil, da je bila njegova individualna stopnja dampinga nazadnje določena leta 2008, ko Rusija še ni bila članica STO.
The dumping margin at the time was calculated with the use of a gas-cost adjustment methodology that was justified by the conclusion that domestic prices for natural gas in Russia were regulated and could not be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Takratna stopnja dampinga je bila izračunana z metodologijo za prilagoditev stroškov plina, ki je bila utemeljena s sklepom, da so domače cene zemeljskega plina v Rusiji regulirane in se zanje ne more šteti, da ustrezno odražajo ceno, ki se običajno plačuje na neizkrivljenih trgih.
In 2012, however, Russia acceded to the WTO and made commitments to ensure that producers/distributors of natural gas in the Russian Federation would operate, within the relevant regulatory framework, on the basis of normal commercial considerations, based on recovery of costs and profit.
Vendar je Rusija leta 2012 pristopila k STO in sprejela zaveze, da bi zagotovila, da bi proizvajalci/distributerji zemeljskega plina v Ruski federaciji v ustreznem regulativnem okviru delovali na podlagi običajnih tržnih premislekov, ki temeljijo na povračilu stroškov in dobičku.
These commitments were incorporated in the Accession Protocol of the Russian Federation to the WTO dated 17 December 2011.
Te zaveze so bile vključene v protokol z dne 17. decembra 2011 o pristopu Ruske federacije k STO.
In this respect, the Commission points out that the purpose of the present investigation is not to establish whether or not Russia's current natural gas regulatory system is consistent with its WTO commitments.
V zvezi s tem Komisija poudarja, da cilj te preiskave ni ugotoviti, ali je sedanji ruski regulativni sistem za zemeljski plin skladen z zavezami države v okviru STO.
The Commission takes no position in this regard.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ni zavzela stališča.
Rather, the objective of an investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation is to determine whether there is a lasting change of circumstances that warrants the re-calculation of the anti-dumping duty for the applicant.
Cilj preiskave v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe je dejansko ugotoviti, ali obstaja trajna sprememba okoliščin, ki bi upravičevala ponovni izračun protidampinške dajatve za vložnika.
However, after having assessed the conditions of the natural gas market in Russia during the review investigation period, the Commission concluded on the basis of the findings described in recital 20, that the natural gas market in Russia is still distorted.
Vendar je Komisija, ko je v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom ocenila razmere na ruskem trgu zemeljskega plina, na podlagi ugotovitev iz uvodne izjave 20 sklenila, da je ta še vedno izkrivljen.
The fact that Russia undertook a number of commitments when acceding to the WTO and that no dispute settlement has been launched for non-compliance does not alter this assessment.
Dejstvo, da je Rusija ob pristopu k STO sprejela številne zaveze in da ni bilo sproženega nobenega postopka za reševanje sporov zaradi neskladnosti, te ocene ne spremeni.
The Commission's conclusion was based on its investigation and the evidence on file.
Sklep Komisije je temeljil na njeni preiskavi in dokazih v dokumentaciji.
WTO Members enjoy a political discretion to bring or to abstain from bringing cases before the WTO.
Članice STO imajo politično diskrecijsko pravico, da predložijo zadevo STO ali se tega vzdržijo.
The absence of cases regarding Russia for a breach of its commitments — can therefore not automatically lead to a conclusion that such distortions do not exist.
Zaradi odsotnosti zadev v zvezi z Rusijo zaradi kršitve njenih zavez torej ni mogoče samodejno sklepati, da taka izkrivljanja ne obstajajo.
Third, the applicant also claimed that the Commission failed to take into account that gas prices in Russia have substantially and continuously increased over the last 14 years and more than doubled since the interim review investigation, when Acron group's dumping margin was last recalculated.
Tretjič, vložnik je trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala, da so se cene plina v Rusiji v zadnjih 14 letih znatno in stalno zviševale, od vmesnega pregleda, ko je bila stopnja dampinga za skupino Acron nazadnje ponovno izračunana, pa več kot podvojile.
It is claimed that the increase in domestic gas prices has never been considered by the Commission.
Trdil je tudi, da Komisija ni nikoli upoštevala zvišanja domačih cen plina.
In addition, the applicant contested that Gazprom would act as a ‘price-setter’ on the Russian domestic market.
Poleg tega je nasprotoval trditvi, da družba Gazprom določa cene na ruskem domačem trgu.
As the Commission noted in recital 20 above, the domestic price of natural gas is still distorted and the fact that the prices have increased in the past 14 years does not contradict that assessment.
Kot je Komisija navedla v uvodni izjavi 20, je domača cena zemeljskega plina še vedno izkrivljena in dejstvo, da so se cene v zadnjih 14 letih zvišale, ni v nasprotju s to oceno.
Regarding Gazprom's market position, the Commission found that given its market share and prominent position, Gazprom acts as a price-setter on the Russian domestic gas market.
Kar zadeva tržni položaj družbe Gazprom, je Komisija ugotovila, da družba glede na tržni delež in vodilni položaj določa cene na ruskem domačem trgu plina.
This is also acknowledged in the annual report of Novatek, one of the independent gas providers.
To potrjuje tudi letno poročilo družbe Novatek, ki je eden od neodvisnih ponudnikov plina.
Fourth, the applicant claimed that the Commission disregarded evidence it has submitted regarding alleged changes in the cost structure of the Union industry.
Četrtič, vložnik je trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala dokazov, ki jih je predložil v zvezi z domnevnimi spremembami strukture stroškov industrije Unije.
In particular, the Commission would have disregarded the effect of the equalisation trend in the gas prices according to which prices for natural gas supplied by Gazprom to the Union have decreased to the benefit of the members of the Union industry.
Komisija naj ne bi upoštevala zlasti učinka trenda izravnavanja cen plina, v skladu s katerim so se cene zemeljskega plina, ki ga družba Gazprom dobavlja Uniji, znižale v korist članov industrije Unije.
As stipulated in point 1 of the Notice of Initiation, this partial interim review investigation was limited to the assessment of dumping as far as the applicant is concerned.
Kot je navedeno v točki 1 obvestila o začetku, je bila ta preiskava v zvezi z delnim vmesnim pregledom omejena na oceno dampinga vložnika.
For this reason, changes in the cost structure of the Union industry fell outside the scope of this review and, consequently, were not assessed in the context of this investigation.
Zato spremembe strukture stroškov industrije Unije niso bile zajete s tem pregledom in niso bile ocenjene v okviru te preiskave.
For these reasons the claim was rejected.
Iz teh razlogov je bila trditev zavrnjena.
Fifth, the applicant contested the finding that the withdrawal of its undertaking did not constitute in itself a change of a lasting nature.
Petič, vložnik je izpodbijal ugotovitev, da umik njegove zaveze ni sam po sebi pomenil trajne spremembe.
In support of this argument, the applicant invoked a case in which the Commission is said to have concluded that the withdrawal of the undertaking constituted a substantial change of circumstance of a lasting nature within the meaning of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
V podporo tej trditvi se je skliceval na primer, v katerem naj bi Komisija sklenila, da umik zaveze pomeni bistveno in trajno spremembo okoliščin v smislu člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
The applicant further claimed that the withdrawal of the undertaking also involved changes in Acron group's sales structure to the Union and that the Commission would have misunderstood that the withdrawal of the undertaking had no impact on the applicant's export price.
Poleg tega je trdil, da je umik zaveze vključeval tudi spremembe strukture prodaje skupine Acron Uniji in da naj bi Komisija napačno razumela, da umik zaveze ni vplival na izvozno ceno vložnika.
These claims cannot be accepted.
Teh trditev ni mogoče sprejeti.
First, the mere fact that an exporting producer's undertaking is withdrawn voluntarily or otherwise cannot be considered as a change of a lasting nature within the meaning of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Prvič, samo dejstvo, da se prostovoljno ali drugače umakne zaveza proizvajalca izvoznika, se ne more šteti za trajno spremembo v smislu člena 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
Article 8(9) of the basic Regulation establishes that when an undertaking is withdrawn the duty imposed by the Commission in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation is automatically applicable.
Člen 8(9) osnovne uredbe določa, da se v primeru umika zaveze samodejno uporablja dajatev, ki jo Komisija uvede v skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe.
The case cited by the applicant concerns a review where the Commission considered the effects of an anti-absorption investigation as change of circumstances of lasting nature in order to reinstate an undertaking.
Primer, ki ga navaja vložnik, se nanaša na pregled, pri katerem je Komisija proučila učinke preiskave za ugotavljanje absorpcije kot trajno spremembo okoliščin, da bi ponovno uvedla zavezo.
Second, the factual circumstances in that are different from the present case and moreover the referred decision does not contain any statement which would support the applicant's claim.
Drugič, dejanske okoliščine v navedenem primeru se razlikujejo od tega primera, poleg tega pa navedeni sklep ne vsebuje nobene izjave, ki bi podprla vložnikovo trditev.
The Commission also did not consider that the changes presented by the applicant could be considered as changes of lasting nature under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija prav tako ni menila, da se lahko spremembe, ki jih je navedel vložnik, štejejo za trajne spremembe v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
For example, channelling all EU sales via a related trader can easily be reversed.
Usmerjanje celotne prodaje EU prek povezanega trgovca se na primer lahko zlahka spremeni.
Similarly, the pricing policy of a company is a decision that can be taken at any moment based on many different considerations.
Podobno je politika oblikovanja cen družbe odločitev, ki se lahko kadar koli sprejme na podlagi več različnih premislekov.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was no sufficient evidence that the export price (and consequently the dumping margin) would have changed and that such an alleged change would be of lasting nature.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da ni bilo zadostnih dokazov, da bi se izvozna cena (in posledično stopnja dampinga) spremenila in da bi bila ta domnevna sprememba trajna.
Thus the claim was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
Sixth, the applicant disagreed that currency exchange variations do not constitute a change of lasting nature.
Šestič, vložnik se ni strinjal, da nihanja menjalnih tečajev ne pomenijo trajne spremembe.
According to the applicant, following a period of relative stability starting in 2009, the Rouble plunged in mid-2014 due to the impact of the EU economic sanctions and has not recovered since.
Po njegovem mnenju se je vrednost rublja po obdobju relativne stabilnosti, ki se je začelo leta 2009, sredi leta 2014 znatno zmanjšala zaradi gospodarskih sankcij EU in si od takrat ni opomogla.
This change in the exchange rate allegedly had an impact on the dumping calculations.
Ta sprememba menjalnega tečaja naj bi vplivala na izračun dampinga.
As stated in recital 21 above, it is the consistent practice of the Commission not to consider currency exchange rate variations as a change of lasting nature due to the fact that they are influenced by multiple market forces and tend to fluctuate over time.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 21, je ustaljena praksa Komisije, da se nihanja menjalnih tečajev ne obravnavajo kot trajna sprememba, saj nanje vpliva več tržnih sil in se skozi čas lahko spreminjajo.
The applicant did not submit any evidence that would put into question this understanding and justify a change of practice in this regard.
Vložnik ni predložil nobenih dokazov, ki bi izpodbijali to logiko in upravičili spremembo prakse v zvezi s tem.
As a result, the claim was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
Seventh and finally, the applicant claimed that the Commission should have also taken into account the findings of the parallel interim review limited to injury covering the same product.
Sedmič, vložnik je trdil, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati tudi ugotovitve iz vzporednega vmesnega pregleda, ki je bil omejen na škodo in je zajemal enak izdelek.
That review concluded that the restructuring of the Union industry and the global changes which occurred on the ammonium nitrate market since 2002 warranted the review of the measures.
V okviru navedenega pregleda je bilo sklenjeno, da prestrukturiranje industrije Unije in svetovne spremembe na trgu amonijevega nitrata od leta 2002 upravičujejo pregled ukrepov.
As mentioned in recital 31, the scope of this interim review was limited to dumping.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 31, je bil obseg tega vmesnega pregleda omejen na damping.
The applicant failed to show how the changes in the global ammonium nitrate market and in the Union market would impact its dumping margin and how the findings of the Commission in another review would be relevant or contradict the Commission's conclusions on this case.
Vložnik ni dokazal, kako bi spremembe na svetovnem trgu amonijevega nitrata in trgu Unije vplivale na njegovo stopnjo dampinga in kako bi lahko bile ugotovitve Komisije v drugem pregledu pomembne za sklepe Komisije v tem primeru ali v nasprotju z njimi.
D. UNDERTAKING OFFER
D. PONUDBA ZAVEZE
The applicant submitted a duly signed voluntary undertaking offer in accordance with Article 8 of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je v skladu s členom 8 osnovne uredbe predložil ustrezno podpisano ponudbo prostovoljne zaveze.
The Commission analysed the undertaking offer and considered that its acceptance would be impractical.
Komisija je slednjo analizirala in menila, da bi bilo njeno sprejetje nepraktično.
The applicant has related companies in two Member States.
Vložnik ima povezano družbo v dveh državah članicah.
According to the information available to the Commission, one of these related companies produces and sells the like product and also other products (i.e. fertilisers) on the Union market.
Glede na informacije, ki jih ima Komisija na voljo, ena od teh povezanih družb proizvaja in prodaja podobni izdelek in tudi druge izdelke (tj. gnojila) na trgu Unije.
The applicant also sells other products to Union customers.
Vložnik strankam v Uniji prodaja tudi druge izdelke.
If the related party in the Union and the applicant sell the product concerned and other products to the same customers in the Union, the prices for such transactions could be set in such a way to compensate for the minimum import price subject to the undertaking.
Če povezana stranka v Uniji in vložnik prodajata zadevni izdelek in druge izdelke istim strankam v Uniji, se lahko cene za take transakcije določijo tako, da se kompenzira minimalna uvozna cena, za katero velja zaveza.
Such a cross-compensation would however not be identifiable by monitoring activities since the price structure for the majority of products produced and sold by the related company in the Union is not subject to any publicly available source.
Take navzkrižne kompenzacije pa ne bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti s spremljanjem, saj struktura cen za večino izdelkov, ki jih proizvaja in prodaja povezana družba v Uniji, ni navedena v nobenem javno dostopnem viru.
Thus it cannot be determined whether the prices paid by the customers respond to the value of the products or take into account a potential rebate in order to compensate transactions subject to the undertaking for which a minimum import price has to be respected.
Zato ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali cene, ki jih plačujejo stranke, ustrezajo vrednosti izdelkov in ali je upoštevan možen popust, ki bi kompenziral transakcije, za katere velja zaveza in pri katerih je treba upoštevati najnižjo uvozno ceno.
Accordingly, a high risk of cross-compensation exists with sales of ammonium nitrate or other products to the same customers.
Glede na navedeno obstaja veliko tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije pri prodaji amonijevega nitrata ali drugih izdelkov istim strankam.
In its undertaking offer, the applicant committed not to sell directly or indirectly any products to its related Union producer.
Vložnik se je v ponudbi zavezal, da ne bo neposredno ali posredno prodajal nobenih izdelkov svojemu povezanemu proizvajalcu v Uniji.
Furthermore, the applicant committed not to sell the products covered by the undertaking to the same customers in the Union to which other products are sold.
Poleg tega se je zavezal, da izdelkov, za katere velja zaveza, ne bo prodajal strankam v Uniji, ki se jim prodajajo drugi izdelki.
In this respect, the Commission notes that even under these commitments the undertaking would still remain impracticable and difficult to monitor.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da bi bila zaveza tudi v tem okviru nepraktična in bi jo bilo težko spremljati.
Furthermore, even if the related Union producer were to offer equal commitments, the monitoring of such undertaking would be impracticable due to the applicant's complex structure.
ZAKLJUČEK PREISKAVE
The applicant was given the opportunity to comment on this decision.
Zainteresirane strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je bil načrtovan zaključek preiskave, imele pa so tudi možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
Zainteresiranim stranem, ki so to zahtevale, je bilo odobreno zaslišanje.
Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate this investigation, and were given the opportunity to comment.
Iz navedenih razlogov je Komisija sklenila, da bi bilo treba delni vmesni pregled v zvezi z uvozom zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz Rusije zaključiti.
Interested parties who so requested were granted a hearing.
Ta sklep je v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 15(1) osnovne uredbe –
For the reasons stated above, the Commission therefore concludes that the partial interim review concerning imports of the product concerned originating in Russia should be terminated.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
This Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,
Člen 1
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Delni vmesni pregled, omejen na dampinški uvoz amonijevega nitrata (trenutno uvrščenega pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059020) s poreklom iz Rusije se zaključi.
The partial interim review limited to dumping concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020) is terminated.
Ta uredba začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Article 2
V Bruslju, 12. novembra 2018
Done at Brussels, 12 November 2018.
Predsednik
The President
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2022/95 z dne 16. avgusta 1995 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije (UL L 198, 23.8.1995, str. 1).
OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 663/98 z dne 23. marca 1998 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2022/95 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije (UL L 93, 26.3.1998, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of 16 August 1995 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dumpinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti (UL L 56, 6.3.1996, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 of 23 March 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 93, 26.3.1998, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 658/2002 z dne 15. aprila 2002 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve za uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije (UL L 102, 18.4.2002, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 945/2005 z dne 21. junija 2005 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 658/2002 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve za uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije in Uredbe (ES) št. 132/2001 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve za uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom med drugim iz Ukrajine na podlagi opravljenega delnega vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96 (UL L 160, 23.6.2005, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 of 15 April 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 102, 18.4.2002, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 661/2008 z dne 8. julija 2008 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve za uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 11(2) in delnem vmesnem pregledu v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96 (UL L 185, 12.7.2008, str. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1).
Sklep Komisije 2008/577/ES z dne 4. julija 2008 o sprejetju zavez, ponujenih v zvezi s protidampinškim postopkom glede uvoza amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije in Ukrajine (UL L 185, 12.7.2008, str. 43).