natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, although the subsidy is referred to as a duty drawback, the scheme does not have all the characteristics of a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation; nor does the scheme conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (I), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation.
Izračun zneska subvencije
The cash payment to the exporter is not necessarily linked to actual payments of import duties on raw materials, and is not a duty credit to offset import duties on past or future imports of raw materials.
V skladu s členom 3(2) in členom 5 osnovne uredbe je Komisija znesek subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, izračunala glede na ugodnost za prejemnika, ki je bila ugotovljena v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
In addition, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju navedenega ugotovila, da je ugodnost dodeljena prejemniku takrat, ko se izvede izvozna transakcija v okviru te sheme.
The payment by the GOI subsequent to exports made by exporters is contingent upon export performance and is therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Takrat mora indijska vlada izplačati denarni znesek, kar pomeni finančni prispevek v smislu člena 3(1)(a) osnovne uredbe.
In view of the above, it is concluded that DDS is countervailable.
Ko carinski organi izdajo izvozno odpremnico, na kateri je med drugim naveden znesek, dodeljen za navedeno izvozno transakcijo, indijska vlada nima pravice odločati o tem, ali se subvencija dodeli.
Calculation of the subsidy amount
Glede na navedeno je Komisija štela za ustrezno, da se ugodnosti na podlagi sheme DDS izračunajo za vsoto zneskov povračil, prejetih za vse izvozne transakcije v okviru tega programa v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
In accordance with Article 3(2) and Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Commission calculated the amount of subsidisation in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which was found to exist during the review investigation period.
Skupina Dhunseri je opozorila, da se je ugodnost na podlagi sheme DDS v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom z 1,9 % zmanjšala na 1,5 %, ter trdila, da je bilo to zmanjšanje trajno, pri čemer se je sklicevala na trend zniževanja stopnje povračila dajatev, ki se je s 5,5 % leta 2011 znižala na 1,5 % v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
In this regard, the Commission established that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the time when an export transaction is made under this scheme.
Zato je družba trdila, da bi bilo treba morebitne izravnalne ukrepe za shemo DDS uvesti le na podlagi 1,5-odstotne stopnje.
At this moment, the GOI is liable to the payment of the cash amount, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Vendar je Komisija opozorila, da se v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredbe „[z]nesek subvencij, proti katerim se lahko uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, […] izračuna glede na ugodnost za prejemnika, ki se ugotovi […] v obdobju preiskave o subvencioniranju“.
Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, je stopnja v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom do 14. novembra 2016 znašala 1,9 % vrednosti FOB, po tem datumu pa 1,5 %.
In the light of the above, the Commission considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DDS with respect to the sum of the amounts earned on export transactions made under this programme during the review investigation period.
Komisija zato meni, da bi bilo treba uporabiti dejanske stopnje, ki so se uporabljale v obdobju pregleda.
The Dhunseri group noted that the benefit under DDS was reduced from 1,9 % to 1,5 % during the review investigation period and argued that this reduction was of lasting nature by referring to the decreasing trend of the DDS rate, which was reduced from 5,5 % in 2011 to 1,5 % during the review investigation period.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
For that reason, the company claimed that DDS, if countervailed, should be countervailed only on the basis of the rate of 1,5 %.
Družba Reliance je trdila, da bi morala biti ugodnost, izračunana na podlagi sheme DDS, omejena na presežna plačila, saj bi bilo treba shemo DDS obravnavati kot shemo za povračilo dajatev, ki je dovoljena v skladu s členom 3(1)(a)(ii) osnovne uredbe, ni pa predložila dodatnih elementov, s katerimi bi utemeljila to trditev.
The Commission however noted that according to Article 5 of the basic Regulation ‘the amount of countervailable subsidies shall be calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient which is found to exist during the investigation period for subsidisation’.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 60, je Komisija sklenila, da se shema DDS ne šteje za dovoljen sistem povračila dajatev.
As mentioned before, during the review investigation period the rate was 1,9 % of the FOB value until 14 November 2016 and 1,5 % thereafter.
Poleg tega je Komisija v zvezi z družbo Reliance med preverjanjem na kraju samem sklenila, da je imela družba Reliance korist od sheme DDS, čeprav v obdobju preiskave v zvezi pregledom ni uvažala nobene od dveh zadevnih surovin (MEG in PTA).
The Commission therefore considers that the actual rates during the review investigation period should be used.
Zato je bila trditev zavrnjena, saj na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij skupni znesek, dodeljen družbi Reliance, pomeni presežek.
Therefore, this argument was rejected.
Družba MPPL je pojasnila, da je za proizvodnjo PET uporabljala prečiščeno tereftalno kislino (PTA) in monoetilen glikol (MEG) ter da je obe surovini kupovala pri enem samem domačem dobavitelju, ki je družbi MPPL v skladu z nakupno pogodbo zaračunaval t. i. „predvideno vsebino elementa carinske dajatve“.
Reliance argued that the benefit calculated on the basis of DDS should be restricted to the excess benefits as DDS should be considered as a duty drawback scheme permissible under Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation but did not provide further elements to substantiate the claim.
Zato je družba MPPL trdila, da je plačevala uvozne dajatve za surovine, ki so se uporabile v izvoženem izdelku, in da bi bilo treba izračun sheme DDS zato omejiti na presežne ugodnosti.
As explained in recital (60), the Commission concluded that the DDS does not amount to a permissible duty drawback.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem opozorila, da družba MPPL ni predložila dokazov, da „predvidena vsebina carinske dajatve“ ustreza kateremu koli dejanskemu plačilu uvoznih dajatev.
Moreover, with respect to Reliance, the Commission concluded during the on-the-spot verification that Reliance had benefited from the DDS even if it had not imported any of the two relevant raw materials (MEG and PTA) during the review investigation period.
Družba IDIPL je trdila, da je bil MEG, ena od dveh glavnih surovin, ki ju je družba uporabljala za proizvodnjo PET, v celoti uvožen in da so bile za ta uvoz plačane uvozne dajatve.
Therefore, the claim was rejected since, on the basis of the information available, the total amount granted to Reliance represents the excess.
Družba IDIPL je na podlagi zneska dajatev, plačanega za MEG, uporabljenega za PET, ki se je izvažal v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom, predložila tudi izračun domnevnega presežnega odpusta in trdila, da bi bilo treba raven subvencioniranja določiti le na podlagi tega presežnega odpusta.
MPPL explained that it used purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and monoethylene glycol (MEG) to manufacture PET and that both raw materials were sourced from a single domestic supplier who, pursuant to the purchase contract, was charging MPPL a so-called ‘deemed content of customs duty element’.
Komisija je kljub temu, da ni sistema ali postopka, ki bi potrdil, katere surovine so porabljene pri proizvodnji izvoznega izdelka in v kakšnih količinah, to trditev preverila v skladu s Prilogo II(5) k osnovni uredbi.
On that basis MPPL claimed that it was paying import duties on raw material incorporated in the exported product and that the calculation of DDS should hence be restricted to excess benefits.
S preverjanjem se je potrdilo, da je bil ves MEG, porabljen pri proizvodnji PET, uvožen, in da je bil znesek uvoznih dajatev iz trditve dejansko plačan za MEG, ki se je uporabil v PET, izvoženem v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
The Commission noted in this respect that MPPL failed to provide any evidence that the ‘deemed content of customs duty’ corresponded to any actual payment of import duties.
Na tej podlagi je Komisija sprejela zahtevek in raven subvencioniranja izračunala le za presežni odpust.
IDIPL submitted that MEG, one of the two main raw materials used by the company to manufacture PET, was entirely imported and that import duties were paid on these imports.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 7(2) osnovne uredbe te zneske subvencij dodelila za skupni promet od izvoza izdelka, ki se pregleduje, v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom kot ustrezen imenovalec, ker je subvencija odvisna od opravljenega izvoza in ni bila dodeljena glede na izdelane, proizvedene, izvožene ali prepeljane količine.
On the basis of the amount of duties paid on MEG incorporated in PET exported during the review investigation period, IDIPL further provided a calculation of an alleged excess remission and claimed that the level of subsidisation should be established on that excess remission alone.
Komisija je tako ugotovila, da je stopnja subvencije glede na zadevno shemo v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom znašala 0,38 % za skupino Dhunseri in 1,67 % za družbo Reliance.
Despite the absence of a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, the Commission carried out a verification of the claim in accordance with Annex II (5) of the basic Regulation.
Pripombe o razkritju
The verification confirmed that all MEG consumed in the production of PET was imported and that the amount of import duties reported in the claim was actually paid on MEG incorporated in PET exported during the review investigation period.
družba Reliance je trdila, da je Komisija shemo DDS napačno opredelila kot subvencijo in shemo, ki spada pod člen 3(1)(a)(i), ter trdila, da je poleg tega Komisija s preverjanjem presežnega odpusta drugega izvoznika ravnala v nasprotju s to opredelitvijo.
On that basis the Commission accepted the claim and calculated the level of subsidisation on the excess remission alone.
Trdila je, da je Komisija različne strani obravnavala različno, ko je izračunala znesek presežnega odpusta in zlasti v primeru družbe Reliance izravnala celotno ugodnost na podlagi sheme DDS, namesto da bi izravnala le presežni odpust.
In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission allocated these subsidy amounts over the total export turnover of the product under review during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.
Ta trditev je neutemeljena.
The Commission thus established that the subsidy rates in respect of this scheme during the review investigation period amounted to 0,38 % for the Dhunseri group and 1,67 % for Reliance.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno, se subvencija imenuje povračilo dajatev, vendar shema nima vseh značilnosti dovoljenega sistema povračila dajatev ali nadomestnega sistema povračil v smislu člena 3(1)(a)(ii) osnovne uredbe niti ne izpolnjuje pravil iz točke (i) Priloge I, Priloge II in Priloge III k osnovni uredbi, saj gotovinsko plačilo izvozniku ni povezano z dejanskim plačilom uvoznih dajatev za surovine, prav tako pa ni dobropis za dajatve, ki bo uporabljen za izravnavo uvoznih dajatev za pretekli ali prihodnji uvoz surovin.
Comments on disclosure
Poleg tega so se enak pristop in pravila uporabili za vse družbe (Reliance in skupino Dhunseri), saj je Komisija poskušala ugotoviti, ali so družbe v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom dejansko uvažale katero od zadevnih surovin ali ne in na tak uvoz plačale uvozne dajatve.
Reliance submitted that the Commission made an error by identifying DDS as a subsidy and as scheme falling under Articles 3(1)(a)(i) and submitted that, in addition the Commission has acted in contradiction with this determination by verifying the excess remission of another exporter.
Nato je Komisija na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij izračunala presežni odpust za obe družbi.
Reliance claimed that the Commission treated the different parties differently when calculating the amount of excess remission and, in the particular case of Reliance, countervailed the full DDS benefit instead of restricting countervailing to excess remission only.
Situacija obeh družb je naslednja.
This claim is unfounded.
Družba IDIPL (del skupine Dhunseri) je trdila in predložila dokaze, da je ena od dveh glavnih surovin, ki se uporablja za proizvodnjo PET, v celoti uvožena in da so bile uvozne dajatve plačane.
Indeed, as explained above although the subsidy is referred to as a duty drawback, the scheme does not have all the characteristics of a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation; nor does the scheme conform to the rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II and Annex III of the basic Regulation as the cash payment to the exporter is not linked to actual payments of import duties on raw materials, and is not a duty credit to offset import duties on past or future imports of raw materials.
Komisija je to preverila in ugotovila, da je zadevna trditev resnična.
Moreover, the same approach and rules were applied to all companies (Reliance and Dhunseri group) as the Commission sought to understand whether the companies actually imported or not any of the relevant raw materials during the review investigation period and paid import duties on such imports.
Na tej dejanski podlagi je Komisija raven subvencioniranja izračunala za presežni odpust.
Then, on the basis of the information available, the Commission calculated the excess remission for the two companies.
Družba Reliance je bila pozvala, naj predloži enake dokaze kot družba IDIPL, vendar tega ni storila.
The respective situation of both companies is as follows.
Zato je za družbo Reliance presežni odpust zajemal celotni znesek, ki ga je prejela od indijske vlade.
IDIPL (part of Dhunseri group) claimed and provided evidence that one of the two main raw materials used to manufacture PET was entirely imported and import duties were paid.
Ker je razlika med obema proizvajalcema izvoznikom utemeljena na podlagi razlike v razpoložljivih dejstvih, je bila trditev zavrnjena.
The Commission carried out a verification and it showed the correctness of the claim.
Družba Reliance je nadalje trdila, da je bilo dokazno breme napačno uporabljeno, ko naj bi se proizvajalcu izvozniku naložilo breme določanja količine presežnega odpusta.
On this factual basis the Commission calculated the level of subsidisation on the excess remission.
Komisija se ne strinja.
Reliance was invited to bring the same evidence as IDIPL, but failed to do so.
Spomnila je, da postopek preiskovanja temelji na izpolnjenih vprašalnikih in preveritvenih obiskih.
For Reliance, the excess remission consisted therefore in the full amount received from the GOI.
Informacije v zvezi s stopnjo uvoznih dajatev, ki jo je zadevna družba dejansko plačala (ali ne), so dejstvo in jih mora sporočiti družba.
Therefore, since the difference between the two exporting producers is justified on the basis of the difference in the facts available, the claim was rejected.
Družba Reliance teh informacij ni predložila v odgovoru na vprašalnik iz uvodne izjave 19, kjer so zainteresirane stranke pozvane, naj predložijo vse ustrezne informacije glede izračuna stopnje subvencioniranja.
Reliance further claimed that the burden of proof was wrongly applied by allegedly imposing upon the exporting producer the burden of determining the quantity of an excess remission.
Na podlagi teh podatkov se je zdelo, da je bil celotni znesek povračila dajatev preseženi odpust.
It was first established that Reliance did not pay import duties on the two main raw materials incorporated in exported PET, namely PTA and MEG.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila družba Reliance pozvana, naj odgovori na vprašalnik in zagotovi informacije o presežnem odpustu med preveritvenim obiskom, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 74.
The Commission further examined whether import duties were paid on raw materials used to produce PTA, MEG or any upstream raw material used to produce PTA or MEG.
Zato je bila ta trditev prav tako zavrnjena.
It however appeared that Reliance, being an integrated petrochemical company, was importing crude oil and manufactured internally all intermediate products leading to the production of PET.
Družba Reliance je opozorila, da Komisija ni dala na voljo poročila o preverjanju, in trdila, da zaradi tega ni mogla ustrezno braniti svojih interesov v zvezi s shemo DDS, ker je Komisija pri količinski določitvi zneska ugodnosti na podlagi sheme DDS obrnila dokazno breme.
The Commission then obtained the import duty rate applicable to crude oil which turned out to be 0 % as demonstrated by an exhibit provided by Reliance during the verification visit.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno, po mnenju Komisije breme dokazovanja, da so bile plačane uvozne dajatve za surovine, uporabljene v izvoženih izdelkih, za katere je indijska vlada povrnila navedene domnevno plačane uvozne dajatve, nosi proizvajalec izvoznik.
Based on this information it appeared that the entire DDS amount was an excess remission.
Komisija nosi breme izračuna zneska subvencioniranja na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij.
Reliance did not provide any verifiable quantified submission that would have pointed otherwise during the rest of the investigation.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da so bili ustrezni elementi za določitev stopnje subvencioniranja na podlagi sheme DDS v skladu z metodo, pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 69, preverjeni na podlagi izpolnjenega vprašalnika družbe Reliance.
Reliance did not provide any information that would allow the calculation of an excess remission despite being invited to do so at several occasions.
Shema DDS se je preverjala vzporedno s preverjanjem sheme MEIS, saj sta si zelo podobni.
In short the Commission proactively collected information necessary to calculate the level of DDS subsidisation and despite numerous invitations Reliance failed to provide factual information that the company has in its possession and that would have justified the calculation of an excess remission lower than the total DDS amount.
Preverjenih je bilo več izvoznih računov in njihovih povezanih dokumentov.
Therefore the claim was rejected.
Te informacije so družbi Reliance na voljo tudi v obliki dokazov, pridobljenih med obiskom.
Reliance claimed that the only invitation by the Commission to provide information enabling to determine the level of the excess remission was made at the time of disclosure.
Komisija je med preveritvenim obiskom odkrila neskladje med vrednostjo izvoznega blaga, ki ga je družba Reliance predložila na podlagi sheme DDS, in vrednostjo izvoznega blaga na podlagi sheme MEIS.
However, the Commission observes that Reliance was invited to reply to a questionnaire and to provide information regarding excess remission during the verification visit, as explained in recital (74).
To neskladje je družba Reliance pojasnila v enem od dokazov, pridobljenih med obiskom.
Thus, this claim was also rejected.
To neskladje sicer ni vplivalo na izračun zneska subvencioniranja.
Reliance noted that the Commission has not made available a verification report and claimed that the absence of this report prevented it to defend its interests properly regarding DDS considering that the Commission reversed the burden of proof in the quantification of the DDS benefit amount.
Pri preverjanju niso bila ugotovljena nobena druga odstopanja, povezana z dokumenti, ki jih je družba Reliance predložila v zvezi s shemo DDS.
As explained before, the Commission considers that the burden of showing that import duties were paid on raw materials incorporated into exported products upon which the GOI refunded those import duties allegedly paid lies upon the exporting producer.
V skladu s tem so bile vse informacije, potrebne za uveljavljanje pravic zainteresiranih strani do obrambe, zainteresiranim stranem, vključno z družbo Reliance, sporočene v zgodnji fazi preiskave.
The Commission has the burden of calculating the amount of subsidisation on the basis of the information available.
Zato Komisija meni, da so se med zadevno preiskavo pravice družbe Reliance do obrambe ustrezno spoštovale.
In this respect, the Commission notes that relevant elements used to establish the DDS subsidisation rate according to the method explained in recital (69) were verified on the basis of Reliance's questionnaire reply.
Uvodna izjava 74 tudi dokazuje, da Komisija ni obrnila dokaznega bremena, ampak je nasprotno proaktivno zbirala informacije, potrebne za izračun zneska ugodnosti na podlagi sheme DDS.
The verification of DDS was carried out in parallel with the verification of MEIS as the two schemes are very similar.
Ta trditev se zato zavrne.
Several export invoices and their related documents were verified.
Skupina Dhunseri
This information is also available to Reliance in the form of mission exhibits.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno, so bili vsi vključeni gospodarski subjekti obravnavani v skladu z istimi pravili po tem, ko je bila opravljena natančna ocena njihovega konkretnega dejanskega stanja.
During the verification visit, the Commission found that there was a discrepancy between the value of the export goods submitted by Reliance under the DDS as compared to the value of export goods under MEIS.
Družba IDIPL je ponovila trditev, da je bila družbi MPPL v OPP zaračunana „predvidena carinska dajatev“, ki jo je družba MPPL tudi plačala domačemu dobavitelju PTA in MEG v skladu z njihovimi pogodbenimi dogovori.
This discrepancy was explained by Reliance in one of the mission exhibits.
Trdila je, da bi bilo treba „predvideno carinsko dajatev“ odbiti od skupnega zneska ugodnosti na podlagi sheme DDS.
Nevertheless, this discrepancy did not affect the calculation of the amount of subsidisation.
Nadalje je trdila, da se z mehanizmom „predvidene carinske dajatve“ „izvaja odločitev politike, da se uvozna dajatev, zaračunana dobavitelju surovin, prenese na člen nižje v prodajni verigi“.
No other discrepancy was spotted during the verification related to the documents submitted by Reliance in relation with DDS.
Kar zadeva to trditev, lahko Komisija potrdi, da je v trgovinski pogodbi med družbo MPPL in njenim dobaviteljem v formuli, ki se uporablja za izračun cene surovin, navedena „predvidena carinska dajatev“.
Accordingly, all information necessary to exercise interested parties' rights of defence was communicated to interested parties, including to Reliance, at an early stage of the investigation.
Vendar to samo po sebi ni dokaz, da je domači dobavitelj dejansko plačal carino, saj je ta formula rezultat trgovinskih pogajanj, pri katerih se ne upošteva nujno, ali so carine dejansko plačane.
Therefore, the Commission considers that Reliance's rights of defence were properly respected during the underlying investigation.
V zvezi s tem družba IDIPL ni predložila nobenega dokaza, da je surovine, ki jih je kupila, uvozil njihov dobavitelj, in da je bila zadevna carinska dajatev plačana, če so bile surovine uvožene.
Recital (74) also demonstrates that the Commission did not reverse the burden of proof and on the contrary proactively gathered the information needed to calculate the DDS benefit amount.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.