natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to protect the commercially sensitive information of the cooperating Indian producers and the sampled exporting Chinese producers, detailed dumping calculations were disclosed only to the sampled exporting producers, including the methodology used to calculate the normal value for each product type.
Da bi se zaščitile poslovno občutljive informacije sodelujočih indijskih proizvajalcev in vzorčenih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, so se podrobni izračuni dampinga, vključno z metodologijo, uporabljeno za izračun normalne vrednosti za vsako vrsto izdelka, razkrili samo vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
However, because the data used to determine the normal values pertained to only two groups of companies in the analogue country, it was not possible to provide aggregated figures concerning the normal value without disclosing commercially sensitive data relating to these parties.
Vendar so se podatki, uporabljeni za določitev normalnih vrednosti, nanašali samo na dve skupini družb v primerljivi državi, zato ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti združenih podatkov v zvezi z normalno vrednostjo, ne da bi se razkrili poslovno občutljivi podatki v zvezi s temi stranmi.
The normal value was therefore disclosed in ranges.
Zato je bila normalna vrednost razkrita v razponih.
The Commission did not perform overall aggregated calculations per product type sold by all sampled Chinese exporting producers.
Komisija ni opravila splošnih združenih izračunov na vrsto izdelka, ki jo prodajajo vsi vzorčeni kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki.
Rather, the Commission performed calculations per product type per exporting producer.
Namesto tega je opravila izračune na vrsto izdelka za vsakega proizvajalca izvoznika.
In addition, the aggregated data requested by the CCCME for all sampled Chinese exporting producers and the analogue Indian producers concerning sales volumes per product type constitutes commerciallysensitive information within the meaning of Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega so združeni podatki za vse vzorčene kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike in primerljive indijske proizvajalce v zvezi z obsegi prodaje na vrsto izdelka, ki jih je zahtevala CCCME, poslovno občutljive informacije v smislu člena 19 osnovne uredbe.
Therefore, the Commission rejected this request.
Zato je Komisija to zahtevo zavrnila.
Nevertheless, a document detailing the technical characteristics of the full range of the product types sold in the analogue market and in the Union market by the sampled Indian producers was included in the non-confidential file before provisional disclosure.
Ne glede na to je bil pred začasnim razkritjem v dokumentacijo, ki ni zaupna, vključen dokument s podrobnostmi o tehničnih značilnostih celotnega asortimenta vrst izdelka, ki jih vzorčeni indijski proizvajalci prodajajo na primerljivem trgu in trgu Unije.
In order to support its request for further disclosure, the CCCME questioned the consistency of the undercutting and dumping margins published in the provisional Regulation and reiterated the same concerns following the final disclosure It claimed that, since India had been chosen as analogue country and since Chinese and Indian exporting producers had similar undercutting margins, a logical corollary was that the exporting producers of both countries should have equally similar dumping margins.
Da bi CCCME podprla svojo zahtevo po nadaljnjem razkritju, je izrazila dvom glede doslednosti stopenj nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen in dampinga, objavljenih v začasni uredbi, ter ponovila iste skrbi po končnem razkritju.
The CCCME argued that the information available to it was not sufficient to understand and comment on the Commission's findings in this regard.
Trdila je, da je glede na to, da je bila Indija izbrana za primerljivo državo, ter dejstvo, da imajo kitajski in indijski proizvajalci izvozniki podobne stopnje nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen, logično, da so stopnje dampinga pri proizvajalcih izvoznikih obeh držav enako podobne.
The Commission noted that, as explained in recital (179) of the provisional Regulation, the differences in the undercutting margins of the Indian and the Chinese exporting producers is explained by the difference of the product mix of the Chinese and Indian exports to the Union.
CCCME je trdila, da informacije, ki jih je imela na voljo, niso bile zadostne za to, da bi lahko razumela ugotovitve Komisije v zvezi s tem in predložila pripombe o njih.
The Commission recalled that the undercutting margins result from a comparison of the products exported by Chinese exporting producers with similar products sold by the Union industry, while the dumping margins of the Chinese exporting producers result from the comparison of the products exported from the PRC to the Union with similar products sold on the Indian domestic market.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 179 začasne uredbe, je Komisija ugotovila, da je mogoče razlike med stopnjami nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen indijskih in kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov pojasniti z razliko v mešanici sestavin med kitajskimi in indijskimi izdelki, izvoženimi v Unijo.
As such, and as recognised by the CCCME itself, a discrepancy between these two margins is a possible outcome.
Komisija je opozorila, da so bile stopnje nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen pridobljene s primerjanjem izdelkov, ki so jih izvažali kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki, s podobnimi izdelki, ki jih je prodajala industrija Unije, medtem ko so bile stopnje dampinga kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov pridobljene s primerjanjem izdelkov, izvoženih iz LRK v Unijo, s podobnimi izdelki, naprodaj na indijskem domačem trgu.
In addition, during the hearing held with the CCCME chaired by the Hearing Officer, on 8 September 2017, the Commission explained why the adjustment for non-refundable VAT on the dumping margin established for the Chinese exporting producers affected the comparison between the Indian and Chinese results.
Zato je razlika med tema dvema stopnjama eden od možnih rezultatov, kot je priznala tudi CCCME.
This adjustment was also subject to comments from the CCCME addressed below.
Poleg tega je Komisija med zaslišanjem s CCCME 8. septembra 2017, ki je potekalo pred pooblaščencem za zaslišanje, pojasnila, zakaj je prilagoditev stopnje dampinga, ugotovljene za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, za nevračljiv DDV vplivala na primerjavo med indijskimi in kitajskimi rezultati.
With regard to the injury calculations the CCCME claimed that the Commission has disregarded the CCCME's request for full access to the volume and price effects, injury margin and injury indicators calculations, and any other confidential information on which those calculations were based.
CCCME je tudi v zvezi s to prilagoditvijo predložila pripombe, ki se obravnavajo v nadaljevanju.
The CCCME stated in this respect that the Commission's obligation to respect confidentiality is not absolute and should be balanced against the rights of defence of the interested parties.
V zvezi z izračuni škode je CCCME trdila, da Komisija ni upoštevala zahteve CCCME za poln dostop do izračunov učinka obsega in cene, stopnje škode in kazalnikov škode ter vseh morebitnih drugih zaupnih informacij, na katerih so temeljili navedeni izračuni.
As an example the CCCME noted that the Commission did not disclose to it the product characteristics that were used to compare prices on the Union industry side.
CCCME je v zvezi s tem navedla, da obveznost Komisije za spoštovanje zaupnosti ni absolutna in bi jo bilo treba uravnovesiti s pravicami obrambe zainteresiranih strani.
The CCCME further suggested ways the Commission could strike what it claimed to be the required balance between confidentiality and rights of defence.
Kot primer je CCCME navedla, da ji Komisija ni razkrila značilnosti izdelka, uporabljenih za primerjavo cen na strani industrije Unije.
This included, for instance, proposals to provide ‘aggregated disclosures’.
Poleg tega je CCCME predlagala načine, kako bi lahko Komisija zagotovila to, kar po mnenju CCCME pomeni potrebno ravnovesje med zaupnostjo in pravicami obrambe.
The CCCME suggested that the Commission could provide the price undercutting calculations with the consolidated data of all sampled Chinese exporting producers and the consolidated data of all sampled Union producers.
To je vključevalo, na primer, predloge za zagotovitev „skupnih razkritij“.
The CCCME considered that by providing such compiled data to interested parties that are not active themselves as economic actors on the market, the Commission would duly respect the confidentiality of the underlying data.
CCCME je navedla, da bi lahko Komisija predložila izračune nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen s konsolidiranimi podatki vseh vzorčenih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in konsolidiranimi podatki vseh vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije.
The CCCME criticised the fact that the Commission has consistently prioritised confidentiality over the rights of defence of the CCCME, without any assessment of the specific circumstances, the position of the CCCME with respect to the information at stake and, more generally, without due regard for the importance of the rights of defence.
CCCME je menila, da bi Komisija s predložitvijo takih zbranih podatkov zainteresiranim stranem, ki same ne poslujejo kot gospodarski subjekti na trgu, ustrezno spoštovala zaupnost osnovnih podatkov.
The Commission did not agree with this assessment.
CCCME je kritizirala dejstvo, da je Komisija vselej dala prednost zaupnosti pred pravicami obrambe CCCME, pri čemer ni presodila posebnih okoliščin ali položaja CCCME v zvezi z zadevnimi informacijami ter na splošno ni ustrezno upoštevala pomena pravic obrambe.
It analysed individually each piece of information requested by the CCCME and on 25 August 2017 it provided all the information to the CCCME with the exception of information which was not existent, not part of the file, or was confidential.
Komisija se s to oceno ni strinjala.
Where information was not part of the file, or confidential, the Commission appropriately reasoned its rejection to disclose.
Vsako informacijo, ki jo je zahtevala CCCME, je posebej analizirala in je 25. avgusta 2017 CCCME predložila vse informacije, razen neobstoječih informacij, informacij, ki niso bile del dokumentacije, ali zaupnih informacij.
In particular, the Commission did not perform overall aggregated undercutting calculations and undercutting calculations per product control number (‘PCN’ or ‘product type’).
Če informacije niso bile del dokumentacije ali so bile zaupne, je Komisija zavrnitev razkritja ustrezno utemeljila.
Rather, it performed undercutting calculations per product type and per exporting producer.
Komisija zlasti ni opravila splošnih združenih izračunov nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen in izračunov nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen na kontrolno številko izdelka („PCN“ ali „vrsta izdelka“).
Therefore aggregated information was not used in the investigation and was therefore not part of the file.
Namesto tega je opravila izračune nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen na vrsto izdelka in na proizvajalca izvoznika.
With respect to confidential information, the Commission recalled that it was under obligation to protect such information under Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Zato se združene informacije v preiskavi niso uporabile in niso bile del dokumentacije.
Furthermore the Commission considered that the open file of the case made available to parties, including to the CCCME, contained all the information relevant for the presentation of their cases and used in the investigation.
Komisija je v zvezi z zaupnimi informacijami opozorila, da je zanjo veljala obveznost varstva takih informacij v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe.
If the information was deemed confidential, the open file contained meaningful summaries thereof.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da je javna dokumentacija zadeve, ki je bila dana na voljo stranem, vključno s CCCME, vsebovala vse informacije, pomembne za predstavitev njihovih primerov in uporabljene v preiskavi.
All the interested parties, including the CCCME, had access to the open file and could consult it.
Če se je štelo, da so informacije zaupne, so bile v javni dokumentaciji smiselno povzete.
With regard to the CCCME, is the Commission observed that although it represents, among others, the Chinese castings industry, it was not authorised by any individual sampled exporting producer to have access to its confidential information.
Vse zainteresirane strani, vključno s CCCME, so imele dostop do javne dokumentacije in so se lahko nanjo sklicevale.
Thus, the confidential disclosure sent to the individual sampled Chinese exporting producers could not be provided to the CCCME.
Komisija je v zvezi s CCCME ugotovila, da čeprav med drugim zastopa kitajsko industrijo ulitkov, ji noben posamezni vzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik ni odobril dostopa do svojih zaupnih informacij.
In light of the above, the Commission considered that the CCCME and the exporting producer had been given the opportunity to fully exercise their rights of defence and rejected their claims.
Zato zaupnega razkritja, zagotovljenega posameznim vzorčenim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti CCCME.
Following the final disclosure, the CCCME repeated its claim that it had not been placed in a position that fully allowed it to exercise its rights of defence.
Glede na navedeno je Komisija menila, da sta imela CCCME in proizvajalec izvoznik možnost, da v celoti uveljavljata svoje pravice obrambe, ter zavrnila njune trditve.
The CCCME did not ask for new information nor did it bring new arguments.
Po končnem razkritju je CCCME ponovila trditev, da ni imela možnosti v celoti uveljavljati svoje pravice obrambe.
In particular, the CCCME did not reply to the disclosure letter where the Commission addressed in details the questions it had submitted to the Hearing Officer on 15 September 2017.
CCCME ni zaprosila za nove informacije niti ni predložila novih argumentov.
The Commission rejected this claim because, as set out in recitals (10) to (26) of this Regulation, it provided the CCCME with full access to non-confidential information and duly justified its rejection to disclose confidential information or information which was not part of the file.
Zlasti ni odgovorila na pismo o razkritju, v katerem je Komisija podrobno obravnavala vprašanja, ki jih je 15. septembra 2017 predložila pooblaščencu za zaslišanje.
Sampling
Komisija je to trditev zavrnila, saj je, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 10 do 26 te uredbe, CCCME zagotovila poln dostop do informacij, ki niso zaupne, in ustrezno utemeljila svojo zavrnitev razkritja zaupnih informacij ali informacij, ki niso bile del dokumentacije.
The list of Chinese exporting producers included in the Annex to this Regulation was modified to include the names of two exporting producers which had been either omitted or misspelled in the provisional Regulation.
Vzorčenje
During the investigation, a non-sampled Chinese exporting producer informed the Commission that it had changed its name.
Seznam kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, vključen v Prilogo k tej uredbi, je bil spremenjen, da sta se vključili imeni dveh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki sta bili iz začasne uredbe izpuščeni ali v njej napačno črkovani.
The Commission was satisfied with the evidence submitted.
Med preiskavo je eden od nevzorčenih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov Komisijo obvestil, da je spremenil svoje ime.
The list of Chinese exporting producers was modified accordingly.
Komisija je bila zadovoljna s predloženimi dokazi.
Individual examination
Seznam kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je bil ustrezno spremenjen.
The CCCME called on the Commission to grant individual examination to the 18 non-sampled Chinese exporting producers who had formally requested such an examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Individualna preiskava
As explained in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation, the examination of such a high number of requests would have been unduly burdensome and would not have allowed the completion of the investigation within the time period established in the basic Regulation.
CCCME je Komisijo pozvala, naj odobri individualno preiskavo 18 nevzorčenim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so jo uradno zahtevali v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission therefore did not grant any requests for individual examination.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 27 začasne uredbe, bi preiskava tako velikega števila zahtevkov predstavljala preveliko obremenitev in bi onemogočila končanje preiskave v roku, določenem v osnovni uredbi.
Market economy treatment (‘MET’)
Komisija zato ni ugodila zahtevkom za individualno preiskavo.
Throughout this investigation, the CCCME and two Chinese exporting producers reiterated the claim that since Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession of the PRC to the WTO had lapsed after 11 December 2016, the choice of an analogue country was no longer warranted and the existence of dumping should be established on the basis of the domestic prices and costs of the Chinese exporting producers.
Tržnogospodarska obravnava („TGO“)
The Commission applied the legislation currently in force.
Med to preiskavo so CCCME in dva kitajska proizvajalca ponovili trditev, da je oddelek 15 Protokola o pristopu LRK k STO po 11. decembru 2016 prenehal veljati, zato izbira primerljive države ni več utemeljena, obstoj dampinga pa bi bilo treba ugotoviti na podlagi domačih cen in stroškov kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Article 2(7)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation provides for the application of an analogue country methodology for establishing the normal value in the case of exporting producers in the PRC.
Komisija je uporabila zakonodajo, ki zdaj velja.
Investigation period and period considered
V členu 2(7)(a) in (b) osnovne uredbe je določeno, da je treba v primeru proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK za določitev normalne vrednosti uporabiti metodologijo primerljive države.
FCI reiterated the claim that the period considered is too short to make any meaningful determination, especially on the volume of imports from the PRC, and a period that is shorter than four years runs counter to the established practice of the Commission, which usually selects a period of at least four years.
Obdobje preiskave in obravnavano obdobje
The Commission noted that the period considered was established at initiation in line with the Commission's standard practice.
FCI je ponovilo trditev, da je obravnavano obdobje prekratko, da bi se lahko oblikovala smiselna ugotovitev, zlasti glede obsega uvoza iz LRK, ter da je obdobje, krajše od štirih let, v nasprotju z ustaljeno prakso Komisije, ki po navadi izbere vsaj štiriletno obdobje.
As explained in recital (35) of the provisional Regulation, the period considered covers three full calendar years and the investigation period.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je bilo obravnavano obdobje določeno ob začetku v skladu s standardno prakso Komisije.
There was no reason for the Commission to depart from its standard practice and select a different period.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 35 začasne uredbe, obravnavano obdobje zajema tri cela koledarska leta in obdobje preiskave.
The claim was therefore rejected.
Zato ni bilo razloga, da bi Komisija odstopala od svoje standardne prakse in izbrala drugo obdobje.
In any event, even if the Commission would follow FCI in including 2012 in the injury analysis, the import volume from the PRC would still show an increase of around 10 % over the entire period.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
In the absence of other comments concerning the investigation period and period considered, recital (33) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
Tudi če bi Komisija upoštevala FCI in v analizo škode vključila leto 2012, bi še vedno ugotovila, da se je obseg uvoza iz LRK v celotnem obdobju povečal za približno 10 %.
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
Ker drugih pripomb glede obdobja preiskave in obravnavanega obdobja ni bilo, se uvodna izjava 33 začasne uredbe potrdi.
Claims regarding the product scope
ZADEVNI IZDELEK IN PODOBNI IZDELEK
Recital (36) of the provisional Regulation set out the provisional definition of the product concerned.
Trditve v zvezi z obsegom izdelka
Recitals (39) to (60) of the provisional Regulation set out the claims of the Indian exporting producers, one Chinese exporting producer, FCI, and two separate unrelated importers and their assessment by the Commission regarding the product scope.
Zadevni izdelek je začasno opredeljen v uvodni izjavi 36 začasne uredbe.
Following the imposition of provisional measures the two unrelated importers and FCI submitted requests for clarification and further claims arguing that certain product types should be excluded from the product scope.
V uvodnih izjavah 39 do 60 začasne uredbe so predstavljene trditve indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, enega kitajskega proizvajalca izvoznika, FCI in dveh ločenih nepovezanih uvoznikov ter ocena Komisije v zvezi z obsegom izdelka.
The exclusion requests concerned the following product types:
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov so nepovezana uvoznika in FCI predložili zahteve za pojasnila in dodatne trditve, da bi bilo treba nekatere vrste izdelka izključiti iz obsega izdelka.
cast tops subject to standard EN 1433,
Zahtevki za izključitev so se nanašali na naslednje vrste izdelka:
step irons and lifting keys,
lite pokrove, za katere se uporablja standard EN 1433;
Gatic components with a dimension exceeding 1000 mm,
nastopna železa in ključe za odpiranje vstopnih jaškov;
surface boxes,
sestavne dele uvoznika Gatic s čisto odprtino, večjo od 1000 mm;
stop tap boxes subject to standard EN 1563, and
cestne kape;
gratings subject to standard EN 124.
kape za zaporne ventile, za katere se uporablja standard EN 1563, ter
With regard to the request of one importer to confirm the product exclusion of cast tops and channel gratings subject to standard EN 1433, the Commission confirmed that channel gratings are subject to standard EN 1433 and are therefore excluded from the product concerned in line with recitals (44) and (60) of the provisional Regulation.
rešetke, za katere se uporablja standard EN 124.
With regards to cast tops the Commission noted that they have the same physical characteristics and applications and are subject to the same standard as channel gratings.
V zvezi z zahtevo enega od uvoznikov po potrditvi izključitve litih pokrovov in kanalskih rešetk, za katere se uporablja standard EN 1433, je Komisija potrdila, da se za kanalske rešetke uporablja standard EN 1433 ter so zato izključene iz zadevnega izdelka v skladu z uvodnima izjavama 44 in 60 začasne uredbe.
Therefore the Commission excluded cast tops from the product concerned.
V zvezi z litimi pokrovi je Komisija ugotovila, da imajo enake fizikalne lastnosti in so predvideni za enako uporabo kot kanalske rešetke ter da se zanje uporablja isti standard kot za kanalske rešetke.
With regard to the request of FCI to confirm the product exclusion of step irons and lifting keys, the Commission established that such step irons and lifting keys are not considered to be part of the product scope of this investigation, because they have a different function than the ones described in the definition of the product concerned.
Zato je Komisija lite pokrove izključila iz zadevnega izdelka.
They are accessories to the product concerned, but do not have the same technical characteristics as the product concerned or the parts thereof.
V zvezi z zahtevo FCI po potrditvi izključitve nastopnih želez in ključev za odpiranje vstopnih jaškov je Komisija ugotovila, da se ne šteje, da so taka nastopna železa in ključi za odpiranje vstopnih jaškov del obsega izdelka pri tej preiskavi, saj imajo drugačen namen uporabe od namenov, opisanih v opredelitvi zadevnega izdelka.
Indeed, step irons and lifting keys are not used to cover ground or sub-surfaces systems or to give access or provide view to ground or sub-surface systems.
To so dodatki za zadevni izdelek, vendar nimajo enakih tehničnih lastnosti kot zadevni izdelek ali njegovi deli.