natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This adjustment is not related in any way to the application of the analogue country methodology to the PRC.
Komisija je izvedla prilagoditev na podlagi člena 2(10)(b) za razliko med posrednimi davki pri izvozu iz LRK v Unijo (pri katerem se obračuna 17-odstotna izvozna dajatev, nato pa se 5 % dajatve vrne) in posrednimi davki na domačo prodajo v Indiji (kjer domača cena ne vključuje davkov).
Recital (91) of the provisional Regulation did not mention this adjustment, which was omitted in error.
Ta prilagoditev ni nikakor povezana z uporabo metodologije primerljive države za LRK.
However, the adjustment was reported in the specific provisional disclosure given to the sampled exporting producers.
Ta prilagoditev je bila pomotoma izpuščena iz uvodne izjave 91 začasne uredbe.
None of them commented on this adjustment.
Vendar je bila prilagoditev sporočena pri posebnem začasnem razkritju vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
Following final disclosure, the CCCME reiterated its objection to the fact that the Commission made use of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation in order to ensure comparability between the export price from the PRC and the normal value from India.
Ti v zvezi s to prilagoditvijo niso predložili pripomb.
The CCCME claimed that as the export VAT system was one of the reasons why the PRC is not a market economy country, it could not be used to make an adjustment for price comparison.
Po končnem razkritju je CCCME ponovila, da ugovarja temu, da je Komisija uporabila člen 2(10)(b) osnovne uredbe za to, da je zagotovila primerljivost med izvozno ceno iz LRK in normalno vrednostjo iz Indije.
This argument was rejected.
CCCME je trdila, da sistema izvoznega DDV ni mogoče uporabiti za prilagoditev za primerjavo cen, saj je eden od razlogov, zakaj LRK ni država s tržnim gospodarstvom.
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to find an alternative source of normal value when a country is not a market economy and when a company does not claim to be granted Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’).
Ta trditev je bila zavrnjena.
Once the normal value has been determined, the Commission is obliged to ensure a fair and reasonable comparison, in line with the provisions of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe mora Komisija poiskati drug vir normalne vrednosti, če neka država nima tržnega gospodarstva in če neka družba ne trdi, da ji je odobrena tržnogospodarska obravnava (TGO).
As specified in recital (79) above, exports of castings from the PRC are subject to a partly refundable export VAT, whereas domestic sales in India have all taxes refunded.
Po določitvi normalne vrednosti mora Komisija zagotoviti pošteno in razumno primerjavo v skladu z določbami člena 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
Therefore to ensure a fair comparison and in line with settled case law, the Commission was obliged to adjust the normal value under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation, just as the Commission had also done for other differences affecting comparison under other provisions of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 79, za izvoz ulitkov iz LRK velja delno vračilo izvoznega DDV, za domačo prodajo v Indiji pa vračilo vseh davkov.
If a company in the PRC had been granted MET, then the same adjustment to the normal value would have been applied, as the same difference in tax would have been found.
Zato je morala Komisija za zagotovitev poštene primerjave in v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso prilagoditi normalno vrednost na podlagi člena 2(10)(b) osnovne uredbe, tako kot je to storila tudi za druge razlike, ki vplivajo na primerjavo, na podlagi drugih določb člena 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
The CCCME and two Chinese exporting producers claimed that the Commission should make further disclosure for the reasoning on using the shortened PCN identifying the different product types for the calculations and its impact on fair comparison.
Če bi bila družbi v LRK odobrena TGO, bi se uporabila enaka prilagoditev normalne vrednosti, saj bi bila ugotovljena enaka razlika pri davku.
In this respect, the Commission noted that it has complied with its obligation to ensure a fair comparison and that the shortened PCN allowed it to compare the totality of the volume of exports with the most closely resembling types of the like product taking into account their basic physical characteristics.
CCCME in dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika so trdili, da bi morala Komisija razkriti tudi razlogovanje za uporabo skrajšane PCN za identifikacijo različnih vrst izdelka za izračune in njen učinek na pošteno primerjavo.
The Commission did not establish any difference in the market value of the product characteristics omitted in the shortened PCN.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da je izpolnila svojo obveznost za zagotovitev poštene primerjave ter da je lahko z uporabo skrajšane PCN primerjala celotni obseg izvoza z najbolj podobnimi vrstami podobnega izdelka ob upoštevanju njihovih osnovnih fizikalnih lastnosti.
Furthermore, no Chinese exporting producer made a quantified claim to request an adjustment for differences in the physical characteristics.
Komisija ni ugotovila nobene razlike v tržni vrednosti lastnosti izdelka, izpuščenih iz skrajšane PCN.
Following final disclosure, the CCCME and two Chinese exporting producers reiterated that the Commission failed to ensure price comparability.
Poleg tega ni noben kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik predložil količinsko opredeljenega zahtevka za prilagoditev za razlike v fizikalnih lastnostih.
The CCCME claimed that the Commission should make adjustments for product differences reflected or not by the original PCN characteristics.
Po končnem razkritju so CCCME in dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika ponovili, da Komisija ni zagotovila primerljivosti cen.
The CCCME claimed that it did not have access to the technical characteristics of the product sold by the Indian producers and that the disclosure of the full PCN of the product produced by the Indian producers was not sufficient.
CCCME je trdila, da bi morala Komisija izvesti prilagoditve za razlike v izdelkih, ne glede na to, ali jih izražajo lastnosti iz izvirne PCN ali ne.
The Commission recalled that in June 2017, it made available to all interested parties the classification of the products manufactured in the analogue country under the 15 technical characteristics of the original PCN.
CCCME je trdila, da ni imela dostopa do tehničnih lastnosti izdelka, ki so ga prodajali indijski proizvajalci, in da razkritje celotne PCN izdelka, ki so ga proizvajali indijski proizvajalci, ni zadostovalo.
Outside of product catalogues, which the Indian producers did not have, the Commission did not possess any alternative source of technical information which was not confidential by nature or could be summarised meaningfully for review by other interested parties.
Komisija je opozorila, da je junija 2017 vsem zainteresiranim stranem dala na voljo klasifikacijo izdelkov, proizvedenih v primerljivi državi, na podlagi 15 tehničnih lastnosti izvirne PCN.
Furthermore, while the 15 characteristics of the product manufactured by the Indian producers in the original PCN were perfectly known to the CCCME, it did not make any specific claims as to what kind of adjustment should be done, not only beyond the PCN, but even within the PCN.
Razen katalogov izdelkov, ki jih indijski proizvajalci niso imeli, Komisija ni imela drugega vira tehničnih informacij, ki po naravi ni bil zaupen ali bi ga bilo mogoče smiselno povzeti za pregled s strani drugih zainteresiranih strani.
In addition, the Commission did not identify the need for such adjustment during its verification visits.
Poleg tega CCCME ni predložila posebnih trditev glede potrebne vrste prilagoditve v okviru PCN in zunaj njega, čeprav je bila v celoti seznanjena s 15 lastnostmi izdelka, ki so ga proizvajali indijski proizvajalci, v izvirni PCN.
It is noted that the CCCME itself stressed in its submission of 22 December 2016 concerning the choice of analogue country that ‘using India would also address issues with matching product types, again because the data would be more representative […].
Poleg tega Komisija pri svojih preveritvenih obiskih ni ugotovila potrebe po taki prilagoditvi.
By using India as the analogue country, the source data will be significantly larger and it is accordingly far more likely that the Commission will have sufficient data to match the product types.’
Ugotavlja se, da je CCCME v svojih pripombah, predloženih 22. decembra 2016 v zvezi z izbiro primerljive države, sama poudarila, da se „z uporabo Indije obravnavajo tudi vprašanja v zvezi s povezovanjem vrst izdelka, saj bi bili podatki bolj reprezentativni […].
The claim was therefore rejected.
Z uporabo Indije kot primerljive države bodo izvirni podatki precej obsežnejši, zato je veliko verjetneje, da bo imela Komisija dovolj podatkov za povezovanje vrst izdelka.“ Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
The CCCME submitted that the Commission should make adjustments to the cost of production of the Indian producers for alleged irregularities resulting from the low volume of production of ductile iron products.
CCCME je trdila, da bi morala Komisija prilagoditi proizvodni strošek indijskih proizvajalcev za domnevne nepravilnosti zaradi majhnega obsega proizvodnje izdelkov iz nodularnega železa.
The CCCME did not provide any evidence to support this statement.
CCCME ni predložila nobenih dokazov za utemeljitev te trditve.
Since the sales of ductile iron products in India were found to be representative, the Commission found that such adjustment was not warranted.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je prodaja izdelkov iz nodularnega železa v Indiji reprezentativna, je Komisija ugotovila, da taka prilagoditev ni utemeljena.
In any case, this claim being unsubstantiated, it had to be dismissed.
V vsakem primeru je bilo treba to trditev zavrniti, ker ni bila utemeljena.
Following final disclosure, the CCCME reiterated this claim and submitted that it had explained to the Commission that the alleged irregularities resulted in unreasonably high cost of production.
Po končnem razkritju je CCCME to trditev ponovila in dejala, da je Komisiji pojasnila, da so bili zaradi domnevnih nepravilnosti stroški proizvodnje nerazumno visoki.
The CCCME added that in the absence of the disclosure of the cost information pertaining to the Indian producers, it was not in a position to make a substantiated claim for adjustment.
CCCME je dodala, da brez razkritja informacij o stroških v zvezi z indijskimi proizvajalci, ne more utemeljiti trditve o prilagoditvi.
The Commission did not receive any detailed explanations regarding this claim.
Komisija ni prejela podrobne razlage v zvezi s to trditvijo.
In its comments on the provisional disclosure, the CCCME submitted that ‘there may be irregularity in the production or overconsumption of various cost factors that results in a unit production cost that is erroneously high’.
CCCME je v svojih pripombah v zvezi z začasnim razkritjem navedla, da „morda obstaja nepravilnost pri proizvodnji ali čezmerna uporaba različnih stroškovnih dejavnikov, zaradi katere so proizvodni stroški na enoto nepravilno visoki“.
CCCME remained vague or silent as to which cost of production was affected, against which benchmark the alleged irregularity should be established and how the adjustment should be calculated.
CCCME ni točno pojasnila ali navedla, kateri strošek proizvodnje je bil prizadet, po katerem referenčnem merilu bi bilo treba ugotoviti nepravilnost in kako bi bilo treba izračunati prilagoditev.
The Commission disagreed that such claim could not be made in the absence of disclosure of the cost of production of the Indian producers.
Komisija se ni strinjala s tem, da tega ni mogoče trditi brez razkritja stroškov proizvodnje indijskih proizvajalcev.
First, the cost data of the Indian producers were confidential by nature and they could not be summarised for inspection by other interested party in a way which is both meaningful for the purpose pursued by the CCCME and protect the business sensitive data of the Indian producers.
Prvič, podatki o stroških indijskih proizvajalcev so bili zaupni po naravi in jih ni bilo mogoče povzeti za pregled s strani druge zainteresirane strani tako, da bi bilo smiselno za namen CCCME in bi se hkrati zagotovilo varstvo poslovno občutljivih podatkov indijskih proizvajalcev.
Second, the production processes in India and the PRC are very similar.
Drugič, proizvodni procesi v Indiji so zelo podobni tistim v LRK.
This was confirmed in recital (79) of the provisional Regulation and in the submission of the CCCME of 22 December 2016 concerning the choice of India as analogue country.
To je bilo potrjeno v uvodni izjavi 79 začasne uredbe in pripombah, ki jih je CCCME predložila 22. decembra 2016 v zvezi z izbiro Indije kot primerljive države.
The CCCME stated that ‘the majority of Chinese producers are small foundries and the production process is not automated, but more manual’.
CCCME je navedla, da je „večina kitajskih proizvajalcev […] malih livarn, proizvodni proces pa ni avtomatiziran, ampak bolj ročen“.
It also noted that ‘it is common knowledge that India and China are similar in their levels of development and size’ and ‘with respect to other elements affecting costs and prices’, that the PRC and India are ‘more similar to one another than China and any of the other countries.’
Poleg tega je navedla, da je „splošno znano […], da sta si Indija in Kitajska podobni glede stopenj razvoja in velikost“ ter „glede drugih elementov, ki vplivajo na stroške in cene,“ ter da sta si LRK in Indija „med sabo bolj podobni kot Kitajska in katera koli druga država“.
Hence, the CCCME, which claims to represent a high number of Chinese producers of all sizes, could have made its claims without the need to access the confidential data of the Indian producers.
Zato bi lahko CCCME, ki trdi, da zastopa veliko število kitajskih proizvajalcev vseh velikosti, predložila svoje trditve, ne da bi potrebovala dostop do zaupnih podatkov indijskih proizvajalcev.
Based on its own industry knowledge, it should have been able to specify the manufacturing patterns and production ratios that lead to the alleged unreasonable unit cost of production and to substantiate the adjustment claimed.
Na podlagi svojega znanja o industriji bi morala biti sposobna opredeliti proizvodne vzorce in proizvodna razmerja, ki so povzročili domnevno nerazumni strošek proizvodnje na enoto, ter utemeljiti prilagoditev, ki jo je zahtevala.
The Commission did not find any element which would warrant an adjustment to the cost of production of the Indian producers in relation with the determination of the normal value in the analogue country.
Komisija ni ugotovila nobenega elementa, ki bi upravičeval prilagoditev stroškov proizvodnje indijskih proizvajalcev v zvezi z določitvijo normalne vrednosti v primerljivi državi.
Considering that the sales volume of the Indian producers had been found representative and in the absence of any specific and substantiated claim by the CCCME, the Commission rejected the claim that the cost of production of the Indian producers should be adjusted.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je obseg prodaje indijskih proizvajalcev reprezentativen, in ker CCCME ni predložila posebne in utemeljene trditve, je Komisija zavrnila trditev, da bi bilo treba stroške proizvodnje indijskih proizvajalcev prilagoditi.
One Chinese exporting producer claimed that the Commission had unduly adjusted its export prices for credit costs since it did not incur such costs.
Eden od kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je trdil, da je Komisija neupravičeno prilagodila njegove izvozne cene za stroške kredita, saj teh stroškov ni imel.
In order to ensure a fair comparison of prices, allowances for credit costs were applied to the export price of all Chinese exporting producers who gave payment terms to their customers, since any credit granted is a factor taken into account in the determination of the prices charged.
Da bi se zagotovila poštena primerjava cen, so se popravki za stroške kreditov uporabili za izvozno ceno vseh kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so svojim strankam postavili plačilne pogoje, saj je vsak odobren kredit dejavnik, ki se upošteva pri določitvi zaračunanih cen.
This exporting producer was found to grant credit to its customers and therefore an adjustment for credit costs was warranted, even though the company did not borrow money to cover the time between shipment and payment by the customer.
V zvezi s tem proizvajalcem izvoznikom je bilo ugotovljeno, da je svojim strankam odobril kredit, zato je bila prilagoditev za stroške kredita upravičena, čeprav družba ni najela posojila za kritje obdobja med odpremo in plačilom stranke.
Following final disclosure, the CCCME submitted that the Commission should make an adjustment to the normal value when it is based on prices to account for indirect taxes borne by materials physically incorporated in the like product.
Po končnem razkritju je CCCME trdila, da bi morala Komisija prilagoditi normalno vrednost, kadar ta temelji na cenah, da bi se upoštevali posredni davki, ki bremenijo materiale, ki so fizično vgrajeni v podobni izdelek.
However, given that in this instance, the materials incorporated in the like product did not include import charges or non-refunded taxes, the suggestion of the CCCME that it should have led to a price adjustment was irrelevant.
Vendar v tem primeru materiali, vgrajeni v podobni izdelek, niso vključevali uvoznih dajatev ali davkov, ki niso bili vrnjeni, zato trditev CCCME, da je zaradi njih potrebna prilagoditev cene, ni pomembna.
As detailed in the above recitals, the Commission took into account certain comments from interested parties and recalculated the dumping margin of the Chinese exporting producers.
Kot je opisano v zgornjih uvodnih izjavah, je Komisija upoštevala nekatere pripombe zainteresiranih strani in znova izračunala stopnjo dampinga kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Following the disclosure, the Commission received no other comments concerning India.
Po razkritju Komisija ni prejela drugih pripomb v zvezi z Indijo.
The Commission therefore confirmed its provisional findings of establishing no dumping for the sampled groups of exporting producers in India.
Komisija je zato potrdila svoje začasne ugotovitve, da damping za vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Indiji ne obstaja.
Consequently, the Commission confirmed that it established no dumping for the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample, in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, and no dumping for all other exporting producers in India since the exports of the Indian cooperating exporting producers represent a very high volume (around 85 %) of the total Indian exports to the Union.
Zato je potrdila, da v skladu s členom 9(6) osnovne uredbe ni ugotovila dampinga za sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike, ki niso bili vključeni v vzorec, niti dampinga za vse ostale proizvajalce izvoznike v Indiji, saj izvoz sodelujočih indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov predstavlja zelo velik delež (približno 85 %) celotnega indijskega izvoza v Unijo.
In the absence of any comments with respect to the Union industry and Union production, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (108) to (111) of the provisional Regulation.
Ker pripomb glede industrije in proizvodnje Unije ni bilo, je Komisija potrdila svoje sklepe iz uvodnih izjav 108 do 111 začasne uredbe.
In the absence of any comments with respect to the Union consumption, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (112) to (114) of the provisional Regulation.
Ker pripomb glede potrošnje Unije ni bilo, je Komisija potrdila svoje sklepe iz uvodnih izjav 112 do 114 začasne uredbe.
The CCCME reiterated its concerns of its submission of 23 January 2017 regarding the reliability of the import data of the product concerned.
CCCME je ponovila trditve iz pripomb, predloženih 23. januarja 2017, v katerih je izrazila zaskrbljenost v zvezi z zanesljivostjo podatkov o uvozu zadevnega izdelka.
It questioned the method used by the complainants to arrive at the import data limited to the product concerned using adjusted Eurostat data and accepted by the Commission, and argued that the Commission should base its injury examination in an objective manner on positive evidence and not on unsubstantiated assumptions from the complainants.
Izrazila je dvome glede metode pritožnikov, ki jo je sprejela tudi Komisija, za pridobitev podatkov o uvozu, omejenih na zadevni izdelek, z uporabo prilagojenih podatkov Eurostata, poleg tega pa je trdila, da bi morala Komisija svojo preiskavo škode opraviti objektivno na podlagi pozitivnih dokazov in ne na neutemeljenih predpostavkah pritožnikov.
The CCCME further claimed that the burden to obtain reliable import data lies on the Commission.
CCCME je trdila še, da je Komisija odgovorna za pridobitev zanesljivih podatkov o uvozu.
In support of its claim that the import data used by the Commission were allegedly not reliable and could not qualify as positive evidence, on 6 November 2017 the CCCME submitted for the first time export volume figures for the product concerned from the PRC which it claimed were based on PRC customs export statistics for the product concerned that it collected on a transaction-by-transaction and confidential basis.
Da bi CCCME podprla svojo trditev, da podatki o uvozu, ki jih je uporabila Komisija, domnevno niso bili zanesljivi in jih ni bilo mogoče šteti za pozitiven dokaz, je 6. novembra 2017 prvič predložila podatke o obsegu izvoza zadevnega izdelka iz LRK, za katere je trdila, da temeljijo na carinskih statističnih podatkih LRK o izvozu za zadevni izdelek, ki jih je zbrala za vsako transakcijo posebej in na zaupni osnovi.
The CCCME further claimed that it could identify from the product description which products were not product concerned and, as a result, could calculate the actual volume of the product concerned exported from the PRC.
CCCME je trdila še, da lahko na podlagi opisa izdelka ugotovi, kateri izdelki niso zadevni izdelek, in tako izračuna dejansko količino zadevnega izdelka, izvoženo iz LRK.
The Commission noted that the CCCME had calculated itself the exported volume of the product concerned, even on a transaction-by-transaction basis, by using PRC customs data, thereby excluding certain product descriptions.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je CCCME sama izračunala izvoženo količino zadevnega izdelka, tudi za vsako posamezno transakcijo, z uporabo podatkov carinskih organov LRK, pri čemer je nekatere opise izdelka izključila.
The Commission considered the export data provided by the CCCME and found that this data could not alter its findings on trends of market share, import volume and Union consumption during the period considered.
Komisija je proučila podatke o izvozu, ki jih je predložila CCCME, in ugotovila, da se zaradi teh podatkov njene ugotovitve o trendih v zvezi s tržnim deležem, obsegom uvoza in potrošnjo Unije v obravnavanem obdobju ne morejo spremeniti.
The Commission further noted that the CCCME has not provided any evidence on the exhaustiveness and accuracy of its data collection.
Komisija je ugotovila še, da CCCME ni predložila nobenih dokazov o izčrpnosti in točnosti svoje zbirke podatkov.
The Commission also noted that the CCCME did not specify which official database from the PRC customs authorities it had used that would have allowed a transaction-by-transaction collection of data and identification of the product description.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da CCCME ni navedla uradne podatkovne zbirke carinskih organov LRK, ki jo je uporabila ter na podlagi katere bi lahko zbrala podatke za vsako posamezno transakcijo in opredelila opis izdelka.
Finally, the Commission noted that export statistics from the PRC are not necessarily identical to the import statistics collected by Eurostat because of the lead time between the exportation from the PRC and the actual importation into the Union.
Nazadnje, Komisija je ugotovila, da statistični podatki o izvozu iz LRK niso nujno enaki statističnim podatkom o uvozu, ki jih je zbral Eurostat, zaradi časa med izvozom iz LRK in dejanskim uvozom v Unijo.