natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Permanent Mission of Russia before the EU received the blank questionnaires and was encouraged to contact (or make the Commission learn about) other Russian producers that may not have been known to the Commission on the day of initiation, so that they would be given the opportunity to take part in the investigation.
Kljub temu sta skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov prejeli vprašalnik in bili pozvani, naj ga izpolnita.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers that came forward informed the Commission, on 21 August 2017, that they had decided not to fully cooperate with the investigation, specifying that they had decided not to reply to the questionnaire and voluntarily limit their participation to submitting only certain data (such as production and capacity, as well as export prices to third markets) and comments on some aspects of the investigation.
Ruski proizvajalci izvozniki so bili v dopisu, priloženemu temu pozivu, nedvoumno obveščeni, da bo Komisija zaradi neizpolnjenih vprašalnikov uporabila člena 18 osnovne uredbe.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers were nevertheless provided with a questionnaire and invited to complete it.
Komisija ni od nobenega od njih prejela izpolnjenega vprašalnika.
In the letter accompanying this invitation, the Russian exporting producers were unequivocally informed that absent a reply to the questionnaire, the Commission would apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Glede na to je Komisija ruske organe 22. marca 2018 obvestila, da namerava uporabiti člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
No questionnaire reply was received from either of them.
Kljub temu je Komisija na zaslišanju dne 8. avgusta 2018 poudarila, da je upoštevala podatke, ki sta jih skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov predložili, čeprav sta skupini trdili nasprotno.
In view of this, the Commission informed the Russian authorities of its intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation on 22 March 2018.
Komisija je pojasnila, da je podatke, ki sta jih skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov predložili v zvezi z zmogljivostjo in proizvodnjo, dejansko navzkrižno preverila z javno dostopnimi podatki, tj. podatki s spletišču Metal Expert.
The Commission however underlined, during the hearing of 8 August 2018, that it had not disregarded the data submitted by the two groups of Russian exporting producers, as wrongly claimed by them.
Komisija je uporabila tudi ruske statistične podatke o izvozu, ki so ji jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 34.
In fact, the Commission explained that it had cross-checked the data provided by the two groups of Russian exporting producers regarding capacity and production with publicly available data, namely Metal Expert.
Zato je bila trditev, da Komisija ni upoštevala informacij, ki sta jih predložili skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, zavrnjena.
The Commission also used the data from the Russian Exports Statistis received from the exporting producers, as explained in recital (34).
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta navedli tudi, da sta Komisijo pozvali, naj izvede preveritvene obiske v zvezi z omejenimi podatki, ki sta jih predložili, Komisija pa teh preveritvenih obiskov ni izvedla.
Therefore, the claim that the Commission had disregarded the information submitted by the two groups of exporting producers was rejected.
V skladu s členom 16 osnovne uredbe bi bilo treba preveritvene obiske izvesti, kadar se Komisiji zdi primerno, pri čemer se lahko Komisija odloči, da takega preveritvenega obiska ne bo izvedla, če pravočasno ne prejme ustreznega odgovora.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers also noted that they had invited the Commission to carry out verification visits on the limited data that they had provided and that no verification visit had taken place.
Komisija se je na podlagi navedenega in ker v tej zadevi ni bilo ustrezno izpolnjenega vprašalnika, odločila, da se preveritveni obisk ne bi smel izvesti.
According to Article 16 of the basic Regulation, verification visits should be carried out where the Commission considers it appropriate and, in the absence of a proper and timely reply, the Commission may choose not to carry out such a verification visit.
Verjetnost nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga v primeru razveljavitve ukrepov
On that basis, and given the absence of a proper questionnaire reply in this case, the Commission considered that no verification visit should took place.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je Rusija v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom nadaljevala z dampingom, raven uvoza v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom pa je bila razmeroma nizka.
Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping should measures be repealed
Komisija je zato analizirala, ali obstaja verjetnost, da se bo damping nadaljeval ali ponovil, če bi se dovolil iztek sedanjih protidampinških ukrepov.
As established above, Russia was found to continue dumping in the review investigation period, but the level of imports during the review investigation period was relatively limited.
Pri tem je obravnavala proizvodnjo in neizkoriščeno zmogljivost v Rusiji, privlačnost trga Unije in ravnanje ruskih izvoznikov na drugih trgih.
Therefore, the Commission analysed whether dumping was likely to continue or recur if the current anti-dumping measures would be allowed to expire.
Neizkoriščena zmogljivost
When doing so, it looked into production and spare capacity in Russia, the attractiveness of the Union market and the behaviour of Russian exporters in other markets.
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta po dokončnem razkritju oporekali ugotovitvam Komisije v zvezi z neizkoriščeno zmogljivostjo, ki je bila na voljo v Rusiji.
Spare capacity
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta zlasti trdili, da je Komisija neizkoriščeno zmogljivost, ki je bila na voljo v Rusiji, precenila.
After final disclosure, the two groups of Russian exporting producers contested the findings made by the Commission on the spare capacity available in Russia.
Ta neizkoriščena zmogljivost je temeljila na tržnih informacijah (spletišče Metal Expert), pri čemer je bila ocenjena na več kot 550000 ton.
In particular, the two groups of Russian exporting producers claimed that the Commission had overestimated the spare capacity available in Russia.
Komisija je na zaslišanju dne 8. avgusta 2018 pojasnila podatke, ki jih je uporabila za izračun podatka, sporočenega v dokumentu o splošnem razkritju, tj. javno dostopne podatke (kot so vključeni v spis) v času priprave dokumenta o splošnem razkritju.
This spare capacity was based on market intelligence data (Metal Expert) and it was estimated at more than 550000 tonnes.
Na podlagi prejetih pripomb in razprav na zaslišanju je Komisija skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov pozvala, naj predložita najnovejše posodobljene in podrobne podatke o proizvodnji in zmogljivosti, do katerih imata dostop.
During the hearing of 8 August 2018, the Commission explained the data it had used to calculate the figure reported in the General Disclosure Document, i.e., the data publicly available (as included on the file) at the time of the drafting of the General Disclosure Document.
Iz tako pridobljenih posodobljenih podatkov o neizkoriščeni zmogljivosti je tako razvidno, da je neizkoriščena zmogljivost v Rusiji v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom znašala 350000–380000 ton.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers supplied this information (sourced from Metal Expert) to the Commission on 10 August 2018.
Privlačnost trga Unije
Therefore, for the calculation of the production capacity the Commission used the updated data from Metal Expert as provided by the two groups of Russian exporting producers in the submission of 10 August 2018.
V preiskavi je bilo potrjeno, da je iz razlogov v nadaljevanju trg Unije privlačen za ruske proizvajalce.
The updated spare capacity figures thus obtained pointed at a spare capacity in Russia, during the review investigation period, of 350000-380000 tonnes.
Prvič, kar zadeva velikost, se trg Unije (več kot 1,3 milijona ton potrošnje v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom in 1,5 milijona ton leta 2014) lahko šteje za enega izmed največjih trgov brezšivnih cevi po vsem svetu.
This significant overcapacity represents more than 25 % of Union consumption.
Drugič, po uvedbi ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA, in sicer dajatve v višini 25 % na izdelke iz jekla, v katere je zajet tudi zadevni izdelek, bi lahko bil izvoz Rusije na enega izmed njenih glavnih izvoznih trgov vsaj delno omejen.
Attractiveness of the Union market
Zato bi trg Unije postal privlačnejši, to pa bi pomenilo tveganje, da bi se lahko del trgovine preusmeril v Unijo.
The investigation has confirmed that the Union market is attractive for Russian producers for the following reasons:
Kar zadeva cene, raven nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom (glej uvodno izjavo 137) kaže, da je povprečna raven cen ruskega uvoza na trg Unije pod ravnjo cen proizvajalcev Unije, zato se bo v primeru razveljavitve ukrepov izvoz verjetno še naprej večal.
Firstly, in terms of size, the Union market (over 1,3 million tonnes consumption in the review investigation period and 1,5 million tonnes in 2014) can be regarded as one of the largest markets of SPT worldwide.
Glede na sorazmerno nizko raven uvoza v Unijo v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom (8663 ton) je Komisija analizirala tudi izvozne cene iz Rusije na druge trge tretjih držav v tem obdobju, kot so bile navedene v uradnih statističnih podatkih ruske zvezne carinske službe o ruskem izvozu, ter primerjala te ravni cen z uvoznimi cenami v Unijo.
Secondly, after the imposition of the US Section 232 measures of 25 % on steel products, which cover also the product concerned, Russian exports to one of its main export markets may be, at least, partially restricted.
Ta analiza je pokazala, da Rusija prodaja na več svojih glavnih izvoznih trgih po cenah, ki so podobne cenam dampinškega izvoza na trg Unije ali včasih celo nižje od teh cen.
This would in turn make the Union market more attractive, thus creating the risk that certain trade diversion to the Union may take place.
Ob upoštevanju ugotovitev iz uvodnih izjav od 50 do 58 je Komisija sklenila, da obstaja velika verjetnost, da se bo v primeru izteka ukrepov dampinški uvoz iz Rusije ponovil v precejšnem obsegu.
In terms of prices, the level of undercutting in the review investigation period (see recital (137) below) shows that the average price level of Russian imports on the Union market is below that of the Union producers, and therefore exports are likely to continue to increase should measures be repealed.
Po dokončnem razkritju sta skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov navedli, da v primeru razveljavitve ukrepov ni verjetnosti za nadaljevanje dampinga.
Given the relatively low level of imports to the Union during the review investigation period (8663 tons), the Commission also analysed the export prices from Russia to other third markets during the review investigation period, as reported in the official Russian export statistics from the RFCS, and it compared these price levels with the import prices into the Union.
Kot glavna razloga za oporekanje ugotovitvam Komisije sta poudarili uspešnost ruskega domačega trga brezšivnih cevi in razmere na drugih izvoznih trgih.
That analysis showed that Russia was selling in several of its main export markets at prices similar to or sometimes even lower than the prices of exports dumped into the Union market.
Poleg tega so ruski proizvajalci izvozniki trdili, da Komisija ni upoštevala (javno dostopnih) podatkov, ki so ji jih predložili v zvezi z ravnmi cen na drugih trgih tretjih držav.
In view of the findings established in recitals (50) to (58) the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that if measures were allowed to lapse, dumped imports from Russia would recur in significant volumes.
Ta trditev je napačna.
After final disclosure, the groups of Russian exporting producers submitted that there is no likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures be repealed.
Komisija je ruske proizvajalce izvoznike na zaslišanju 8. avgusta 2018 obvestila, da je pri analizi upoštevala javno dostopne ruske statistične podatke, ki sta jih predložili skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
They highlighted the performance of the Russian SPT domestic market and the situation of other export markets as the main elements to contest the Commission findings.
Na podlagi teh podatkov je Komisija potrdila, da so bile ravni cen na več glavnih izvoznih trgih Rusije, ki predstavljajo pomemben delež celotnega ruskega izvoza brezšivnih cevi, v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom nižje od njenih izvoznih cen v Unijo.
In addition, the Russian exporting producers claimed that the Commission had disregarded the (publicly available) data supplied by them pertaining to price levels to other third country markets.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena.
This claim is factually wrong.
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta trdili, da je bil sklep Komisije o velikost trga Unije, kot je naveden v uvodni izjavi 55 zgoraj, „zelo precenjen“.
The Commission informed the Russian exporting producers, at the hearing of 8 August 2018, that it had taken into account for its analysis the data publicly available from the Russian export statistics submitted by the two groups of Russian exporting producers.
Poleg tega sta trdili, da obstajajo trgi, ki so privlačnejši od trga Unije.
Based on these data, the Commission confirmed that the price levels to several of Russia's main export markets, constituting a relevant share of Russia's total exports of SPT, were made at prices below its export prices to the Union during the review investigation period.
Prvič, pomen trga Unije je bil posebej izpostavljen na zaslišanju 8. avgusta 2018, na katerem so predstavniki največjega ruskega proizvajalca priznali, da je bil trg Unije dejansko eden od glavnih trgov za zadevni izdelek.
Therefore the claim was dismissed.
Poudariti je treba, da Komisija ni zavzela stališča glede tega, ali obstajajo trgi, ki bi bili privlačnejši od trga Unije.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers claimed that the Commission's conclusion on the size of the Union market, as mentioned in (55) above, was ‘largely overestimated’.
Namesto tega je ugotovila, da je bil trg Unije za ruske proizvajalce izvoznike privlačen zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah od 55 do 58.
In addition, they also claimed that there are other markets more attractive than the Union market.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila tudi neskladnosti med opisnim delom stališč, ki so ji jih predložili ruski proizvajalci izvozniki, in dejanskimi podatki iz teh stališč.
Firstly, the importance of the Union market was specifically raised at the hearing of 8 August 2018, where the representatives of the largest Russian producer acknowledged that the Union market was indeed one of the main markets for the product concerned.
Ruski proizvajalci izvozniki so zlasti poudarili, da so cene v nekaterih državah, kot so Indija, Turčija in Združeni arabski emirati, „višje od izvoznih cen v Unijo“.
It is to be underlined that the Commission did not take any position as to whether there could be other markets more attractive than the Union market.
Ta trditev je napačna ter v nasprotju z dejanskimi podatki, ki so jih predložile iste strani in iz katerih je bilo jasno razvidno, da so bile cene v Uniji v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom dejansko višje.
Rather, the Commission established that the Union market was attractive for Russian exporting producers for the reasons set out in recitals (55) to (58).
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
In this respect the Commission also observed inconsistencies between the narrative part of the submissions received from the Russian exporting producers and the actual data contained in these submissions.
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta oporekali tudi sklepom Komisije, da bi lahko uporaba ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA pomenila tveganje preusmeritve trgovine, ter se sklicevali na predhodne ugotovitve Komisije v zvezi s preiskavo EU glede zaščitnih ukrepov za nekatere izdelke iz jekla v teku, pri čemer so bile brezšivne cevi začasno izključene iz uporabe ukrepov.
In particular, the Russian exporting producers highlighted that the prices to certain countries, such as India, Turkey and the UAE are made at ‘prices exceeding export prices to the Union’.
Postopek v zvezi s preiskavo EU glede zaščitnih ukrepov za nekatere izdelke iz jekla še vedno poteka, pri čemer so bile brezšivne cevi začasno izključene iz ukrepov.
This claim is factually incorrect and contradicts the actual figures submitted by the same parties, which clearly showed that during the review investigation period, prices to the Union were actually higher.
Vendar ta začasna izključitev brezšivnih cevi iz začasnih zaščitnih ukrepov ni temeljila na odsotnosti preusmeritve trgovine (kot so napačno trdili ruski proizvajalci izvozniki), ampak na dejstvu, da se uvoz ni povečal.
Therefore this claim was dismissed.
Kar zadeva morebitni učinek ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA, Komisija trdi, da tveganja preusmeritve trgovine ni mogoče izključiti in da bi tako tveganje nedvomno postalo verjetnejše, če bi se dopustil iztek veljavnih ukrepov.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers also contested the Commission's conclusions that following the application of the US Section 232 measures there would be a risk a trade diversion and also referred to the preliminary findings made by the Commission on the ongoing EU Safeguard investigation on certain steel products, whereby SPT was provisionally excluded from the application of the measures.
Opozoriti je treba, da bi trg Unije zaradi 25-odstotne dajatve v ZDA v primerjavi z 0-odstotno dajatvijo v Uniji v primeru izteka dajatev za ruske proizvajalce izvoznike nedvomno postal privlačnejši, kot je v sedanjih razmerah, tj. ob veljavnih dajatvah na obeh trgih.
With regard to the EU Steel Safeguard investigation, the proceeding is still ongoing and SPT were provisionally excluded from the measures.
Trendi uvoza v ZDA za zdaj torej niso pokazatelj, saj ukrepi Unije ostajajo veljavni, spodbuda za menjavo trgov pa je manjša, kot bi bila v primeru odsotnosti ukrepov v Uniji.
However, this provisional exclusion of SPT from the provisional safeguard measures was not based on lack of trade diversion (as wrongly argued by the Russian exporting producers), but it was based on a lack of increase in imports.
Skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov sta trdili tudi, da bodo verjetno za nekatere ruske proizvajalce izvoznike uveljavljena nekatera izvzetja iz ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA.
Regarding the potential effect of the US 232 measures, the Commission maintains that the risk of trade diversion cannot be excluded and that such risk would definitely become more likely if the measures in place were allowed to lapse.
Komisija je navedla, da iz dokazov, ki jih je v zvezi s tem imela na voljo, ni bilo mogoče sklepati o verjetnosti izvzetja posameznega ruskega proizvajalca iz ukrepov.
It has to be noted that a 25 % duty in the USA as opposed to a 0 % in the Union, if the duties lapsed, would clearly make the Union market more attractive for Russian exporting producers than under the current circumstances, i.e. duty in place in both markets.
Zato je Komisija v odsotnosti trdnih dokazov v zvezi s tem to trditev zavrnila.
Therefore the import trends in the USA so far are not indicative given that the Union measures remain in place and the incentive to switch markets may not be as relevant as it would be in the absence of measures in the Union.
Nazadnje sta skupini ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov trdili, da je glede na omejeno količino izvoza v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom malo verjetno, da bi se v primeru razveljavitev ukrepov damping nadaljeval ali ponovil.
The two groups of Russian exporting producers also claimed that certain exemptions from the US 232 measures for certain Russian exporting producers were very likely to take place.
Komisija se je sklicevala na svoje ugotovitve glede verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga iz uvodnih izjav od 50 do 68 in poudarila, da je analiza predvidela verjetnost nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga.
The Commission noted that from the evidence made available to it in this respect, it could not be inferred that a particular Russian producer was likely to be excluded from the measures.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
Therefore, in the absence of any solid evidence in this respect, the Commission rejected this claim.
Ukrajina
Lastly, the two groups of Russian exporting producers claimed that, in view of the limited quantities exported in the review investigation period, it was unlikely that the repeal of the measures would lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
V Ukrajini so trije znani proizvajalci brezšivnih cevi.
The Commission referred to its findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping as set out in recitals (50) to (68), and emphasised that the analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping is of a prospective nature.
Eden izmed njih, skupina Interpipe, je sodelovala v preiskavi.
This claim was thus rejected.
Skupina Interpipe je daleč največji proizvajalec v Ukrajini.
Ukraine
Glede na trgovinsko statistiko je izvoz brezšivnih cevi te družbe v Unijo v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom predstavljal približno 87 % celotnega uvoza iz Ukrajine v navedenem obdobju in je znašal 80711 ton ali 6 % potrošnje Unije v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
There are three known producers of SPT in Ukraine.
Podatki, ki jih je predložila skupina Interpipe, so bili preverjeni na kraju samem v Ukrajini ter v prostorih njenega povezanega trgovca v Švici in njenega povezanega uvoznika v Nemčiji.
One of them, Interpipe Group, cooperated with the investigation.
Po preverjanju je Komisija popravila nekatere podatke, ki jih je skupina Interpipe prvotno predložila, predvsem v zvezi z vrednostmi PSA in CIF.
Interpipe Group is by far the largest producer in Ukraine.
Skupina Interpipe ima v popolni lasti in pod nadzorom dva proizvajalca izvoznika, in sicer LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Niko Tube) in OJSC Interpipe NTRP (v nadaljnjem besedilu: NTRP).
According to trade statistics, its exports of SPT to the Union during the review investigation period represented around 87 % of the total imports from Ukraine in that period, amounting to 80711 tonnes or 6 % of Union consumption during the review investigation period.
V skladu z običajno prakso Komisije je bila izračunana skupna stopnja dampinga za oba proizvajalca izvoznika.
The data submitted by Interpipe Group were verified on-spot in Ukraine as well as at the premises of their related trader in Switzerland and its related importer in Germany.
Obseg dampinga je bil najprej izračunan za vsakega posameznega proizvajalca izvoznika, nato pa je bilo določeno tehtano povprečje posameznih stopenj dampinga na ravni skupine Interpipe.
After verification, the Commission corrected certain data originally supplied by Interpipe Group, mainly with respect to SG&A and CIF values.
Glede na znaten izvoz skupine Interpipe v Unijo v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom je analiza nadaljevanja dampinga v tem obdobju temeljila predvsem na preverjenih podatkih, ki jih je predložila skupina Interpipe.
Interpipe Group has two fully owned and controlled exporting producers, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (‘Niko Tube’) and OJSC Interpipe NTRP (‘NTRP’).
Komisija je v skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe najprej proučila, ali je celotni obseg domače prodaje posameznih sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov reprezentativen.
In line with the Commission's standard practice, one common dumping margin was calculated for the two exporting producers.
Domača prodaja je reprezentativna, če celotni obseg domače prodaje podobnega izdelka neodvisnim strankam na domačem trgu na proizvajalca izvoznika v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom predstavlja vsaj 5 % celotnega obsega izvoza zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.