natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the claim that the company had massively reduced its production capacity was accepted by the Commission.
Skupina Interpipe je trdila, da bi morala Komisija sklepati na podlagi domnevnega preverjanja navedene družbe, opravljenega v okviru druge protidampinške preiskave, ki je bila izvedena pred več kot desetimi leti.
Interpipe Group's claim is thus unfounded.
Komisija meni, da je uporaba novejših podatkov primernejši in zanesljivejši način pridobivanja informacij o proizvodnji in neizkoriščeni zmogljivosti v okviru te preiskave.
As concerns the third producer, the Commission observed significant discrepancies between the data provided by it and data publicly available.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je zadevni proizvajalec v več svojih stališčih, predloženih Komisiji, potrdil, da se število vzpostavljenih proizvodnih linij v zadnjih letih ni spremenilo (čeprav se nekatere od njih zdaj naj ne bi uporabljale).
The Commission thus relied on the production capacity as reported in Metal Expert for calculating its spare capacity.
Iz teh razlogov in ker ni bilo izpolnjenega vprašalnika, Komisija ni mogla preveriti, ali bi bilo mogoče na podlagi navedb družbe sprejeti njeno trditev glede zmanjšane proizvodne zmogljivosti.
The Interpipe Group claimed that the Commission should make assumptions on the basis of an alleged verification of that company performed in the framework of another anti-dumping investigation which was carried out more than 10 years ago.
Skupina Interpipe je po posebnem dodatnem razkritju predložila dokument, ki je po njenem mnenju razveljavljal izračun za druga dva ukrajinska proizvajalca.
The Commission considers that using recent figures constitutes a more appropriate and reliable way of obtaining production and spare capacity information in the framework of this investigation.
Vendar je bil dokument v nasprotju s tržnimi podatki, ki so bili na voljo Komisiji in so dejansko potrjevali njen izračun.
In this respect, the Commission notes that the producer in question confirmed in its several submissions to the Commission that the number of production lines in place had not changed in the last years (although, allegedly, some of them are currently not in use).
Iz teh tržnih podatkov je bilo razvidno, da je bila proizvodna zmogljivost drugih dveh ukrajinskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov precej višja, kot je bilo navedeno v dokumentu, ki ga je predložila skupina Interpipe.
Therefore and in the absence of a questionnaire reply, the Commission could not verify whether the allegations of of the company would have warranted the acceptance of its claim on reduced production capacity.
Zato Komisija potrjuje svojo odločitev v zvezi z neizkoriščeno zmogljivostjo, kot je določena v uvodni izjavi 93.
Following the specific additional disclosure, Interpipe Group submitted a document which, it considered, invalidated this calculation with regard to the other two Ukrainian producers.
Preiskava je potrdila, da je trg Unije privlačen tudi za ukrajinske proizvajalce izvoznike iz razlogov v nadaljevanju.
However, the document contradicted market intelligence data available to the Commission, which actually confirmed the Commission's calculation.
Drugič, kar zadeva cene, raven nelojalnega nižanja prodajnih cen v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom (glej uvodno izjavo 136) kaže, da je povprečna raven cen ukrajinskega uvoza na trg Unije pod ravnjo cen proizvajalcev Unije, zato se bo v primeru razveljavitve ukrepov izvoz verjetno še naprej večal.
This market intelligence data showed that the production capacity of the other two Ukrainian exporting producers was significantly higher than the data in the document provided by the Interpipe Group.
Tretjič, poleg tega je Ukrajina v zadnjih letih kljub veljavnim protidampinškim dajatvam postopoma povečevala svojo raven uvoza (z manj kot 2-odstotnega tržnega deleža leta 2012 na 6-odstoten tržni delež v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom), kar potrjuje, da je trg Unije kljub veljavnim dajatvam še vedno privlačen.
Therefore, the Commission confirms its determination with regard to spare capacity in Ukraine, as set out inrecital (93).
Četrtič, 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 Ukrajine na enega izmed njenih glavnih izvoznih trgov vsaj delno omejen.
The investigation has confirmed that the Union market is also attractive for the Ukrainian exporting producers for the following reasons:
To je treba proučiti poleg drugih obstoječih trgovinskih ovir na tretjih trgih (glej uvodno izjavo 116).
Secondly, in terms of prices, the level of undercutting in the review investigation period (see recital (136) below) shows that the average price level of Ukrainian 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 je skupina Interpipe oporekala ugotovitvam Komisije glede privlačnosti trga Unije.
Third, despite the anti-dumping duty in place, Ukraine has steadily increased its level of imports in the last years (from less than 2 % market share in 2012 to 6 % in the review investigation period), which confirms that the Union market remains an attractive market despite the duties in place.
Skupina Interpipe je zlasti izpodbijala oceno Komisije v zvezi z morebitnim vplivom ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA in čedalje večjim uvozom iz Ukrajine v obravnavanem obdobju.
Fourth, after the imposition of the US Section 232 measures of 25 % on steel products, which cover also the product concerned, Ukrainian exports to one of its main export markets may be, at least, partially restricted.
V zvezi s prvo točko je skupina Interpipe oporekala analizi Komisije v zvezi z morebitnim vplivom ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA na trg.
This is to be viewed in addition to other existing trade barriers in third markets (see recital (116) below).
Skupina Interpipe je zlasti menila, da ni tveganja preusmeritve trgovine na trg Unije.
Following final disclosure, the Interpipe Group contested the findings of the Commission with regard to the attractiveness of the Union market.
Izpostavila je tudi začasne ukrepe Komisije v okviru preiskave glede zaščitnih ukrepov za izdelke iz jekla, kar zadeva brezšivne cevi.
In particular, the Interpipe Group challenged the Commission assessment with regard to the potential impact of the US 232 measures and the increasing imports from Ukraine during the period considered.
Prvič, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 66, so začasni ukrepi, uvedeni v okviru preiskave glede zaščitnih ukrepov, dejansko vključevali odločitev, da se brezšivne cevi izključijo s področja uporabe začasnih ukrepov.
With regard to the first point, the Interpipe Group contested the Commission analysis regarding the potential impact that the US Section 232 measures would have in the market.
Vendar ta začasna izključitev ni temeljila na neobstoju tveganja preusmeritve trgovine, ampak na tem, da se raven uvoza tega izdelka v zadevnem obdobju na splošno ni povišala.
In particular, the Interpipe Group considered that there was no risk of trade diversion into the Union market.
Drugič, skupina Interpipe je priznala, da se nekaj njenega izvoza v ZDA nanaša na vrste cevi OCTG, vendar tudi na cevi za splošno uporabo in cevovode, kar je vrsta izdelka, ki jo izvaža zlasti v Unijo.
The Interpipe Group also pointed to the Commission's provisional measures in the context of the safeguard investigation into steel products, as far SPT is concerned.
Skupina Interpipe je trdila tudi, da se je raven izvoza v ZDA do (vključno) maja 2018 poviševala.
First, as stated in recital (66) in the provisional measures imposed in the context of the safeguard investigation, it was indeed decided to exclude SPT from the scope of the provisional measures.
Komisija trdi, da obstaja tveganje, da bi se lahko vsaj del količin, ki se zdaj iz Ukrajine izvažajo v ZDA, v primeru izteka ukrepov preusmeril v Unijo.
However this provisional exclusion was not done on the basis of a lack of a risk of trade diversion, but rather on the grounds that the level of imports of this product had overall not shown an increase over the relevant period.
To tveganje se nanaša zlasti na standardne brezšivne cevi.
Second, the Interpipe Group acknowledged that some of its exports to the USA concern OCTG types but also general-use and line pipes, which is the product type it mainly exports to the Union.
Opozoriti je treba, da bi trg Unije zaradi 25-odstotne dajatve v ZDA za standardne brezšivne cevi v primerjavi z 0-odstotno dajatvijo v Uniji v primeru izteka dajatev za ukrajinske proizvajalce izvoznike nedvomno postal privlačnejši, kot je v sedanjih razmerah, tj. ob veljavnih dajatvah na obeh trgih.
The Interpipe Group also claimed that, until May 2018 (included), the level of exports into the USA had increased.
Trendi 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.
The Commission maintains that there is a risk that, at least, some of the quantities currently exported to the USA from Ukraine could be directed to the Union should the measures lapse.
Poleg tega bi bili ukrajinski proizvajalci zaradi dejstva, da za nekatere države in/ali posamezne družbe na podlagi ukrepov iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA že velja izvzetje, na trgu ZDA težje konkurenčni.
This risk concerns in particular standard SPT.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da tveganja preusmeritve trgovine ni mogoče izključiti in da bi tako tveganje nedvomno postalo verjetnejše, če bi se dopustil iztek veljavnih ukrepov.
It has to be noted that a 25 % duty in the USA on the ‘standard SPT’, as opposed to a 0 % in the Union, if the duties lapsed, would clearly make the Union market more attractive for Ukrainian exporting producers than under the current circumstances, i.e. duty in place in both markets.
Nazadnje, ukrepe iz oddelka 232 zakona ZDA bi bilo treba proučiti v širšem kontekstu, kar zadeva Ukrajino, in sicer v kontekstu številnih trgovinskih ovir, s katerimi se ukrajinski proizvajalci brezšivnih cevi zdaj soočajo na nekaterih tretjih trgih, in sicer protidampinških ukrepov v Braziliji, Kanadi, Mehiki in Rusiji.
Therefore, the trends 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 in the absence of measures in the Union.
Komisija glede na zgoraj navedeno zato trdi, da bi trg Unije brez protidampinške dajatve postal še privlačnejši in bi torej verjetno prejel še več dampinškega uvoza iz Ukrajine.
In addition, the fact that under the US 232 measures some countries and/or specific companies have already been subject to exemptions would make it more difficult for Ukrainian producers to compete in the US market.
Druge pripombe po dokončnem razkritju
Moreover, the Commission considers 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.
Več trditev skupine Interpipe je bilo povezanih z razvojem potrošnje na ukrajinskem trgu in diverzifikacijo njenih izvoznih trgov.
Lastly, the US 232 measures should also be seen in a wider context as far as Ukraine is concerned, namely, the numerous trade barriers that Ukrainian SPT producers are currently subject to in some third markets, namely anti-dumping measures in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Russia.
Prvič, skupina Interpipe je trdila, da je razvoj njene ravni izvoza in tržnega deleža sledil razvoju potrošnje v Uniji oziroma bil z njim drugače usklajen ter da razvoj uvoza in njegovega tržnega deleža ne more pomeniti tveganja za industrijo Unije.
Therefore, in view of all the above, the Commission maintains that the Union market would become even more attractive without an anti-dumping duty and hence, would likely receive an increase of dumped imports from Ukraine.
Drugič, skupina Interpipe je trdila, da glede na do takrat največjo rast na ukrajinskem trgu ne bi mogla povečati prodaje brezšivnih cevi v Unijo.
Other comments after final disclosure
Skupina Interpipe je sklenila, da bi se lahko morebitna presežna proizvodnja v Ukrajini pokrila z rastjo domačega povpraševanja.
The Interpipe Group made several claims linked to the developments in the consumption in the Ukrainian market and the diversification of its export markets.
Podobno je skupina Interpipe izpostavila tudi bolj raznolik portfelj izvoza, s katerim je oporekala ugotovitvi Komisije v zvezi z verjetnostjo nadaljevanja dampinga.
First, the Interpipe Group claimed that its export level and market share evolution followed or were otherwise in line with the development of the consumption in the Union, and that the development of imports and their market share cannot create any risk to the Union industry.
Komisija je te trditve obravnavala v drugem dodatnem razkritju skupini Interpipe.
Second, the Interpipe Group claimed that in view of the unprecedented growth in the Ukrainian market it could not increase the sales of SPT to the Union.
Komisije je te trditve proučila, vendar jim je oporekala.
The Interpipe Group concluded that the growth in the domestic demand would be capable of absorbing any excess production in Ukraine.
Prvi del te trditve je napačen, drugi pa je v nasprotju z dejstvi, ugotovljenimi v preiskavi.
In the same vein, the Interpipe Group also pointed at a more diversified export portfolio to contest the Commission's finding on the likelihood of continuation of dumping.
V zvezi s prvim delom je Ukrajina leta 2015 na primer svoj izvoz povečala za 20 %, potrošnja v Uniji pa se je zmanjšala za 9 %.
The Commission addressed these claims in the second additional disclosure to the Interpipe Group.
Poleg tega je Ukrajina v obravnavanem obdobju na splošno svoj tržni delež v Uniji povečala za 27 % (njen tržni delež se je povečal za 1,3 odstotne točke), potrošnja v Uniji pa se je v istem obdobju zmanjšala za 10 %.
The Commission considered these claims but contested them.
Zato je Komisija potrdila, da je Ukrajina v obravnavanem obdobju zaradi manjše potrošnje in kljub veljavnim ukrepom znatno povečala obseg uvoza v Unijo (dosegla je 6-odstotni tržni delež).
The first limb of this claim is factually wrong and the second is at odds with the facts as established by this investigation.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v analizi verjetnosti nadaljevanja dampinga zgoraj, je verjetno, da se bo delež dampinškega uvoza iz Ukrajine v odsotnosti ukrepov še povečal.
On the first limb, by way of example, in the year 2015, Ukraine increased its exports by 20 % while consumption in the Union decreased by 9 %.
Trditev skupine Interpipe je bila zato zavrnjena.
Moreover, in overall terms during the period considered, Ukraine increased its market share in the Union by 27 % (its market share increased by 1,3 percentage points) while consumption in the Union in the same period decreased by 10 %.
V zvezi z drugim delom trditve v uvodni izjavi 118 je Komisija trdila, da je iz dejstev nedvoumno razviden drugačen razvoj ravnanja ukrajinskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov pri izvozu na trg Unije, kot ga je predvidela skupina Interpipe.
Therefore the Commission confirmed that, during the period considered, Ukraine significantly increased its volume of imports to the Union (reaching a market share of 6 %) in the context of a decrease in consumption, and despite the measures in place.
Komisija trendom v zvezi z domačo potrošnjo in drugimi državami uvoznicami, ki jih je opisala skupina Interpipe, ni oporekala.
As established in the likelihood of continuation of dumping analysis above, it is likely that in the absence of measures the share of dumped imports from Ukraine will increase further.
Namesto tega je poudarila, da so bili sklepi/napovedi, ki jih je skupina Interpipe izpeljala iz takih trendov (v zvezi s tem, kako bi vplivali na pristop ukrajinskih proizvajalcev k trgu Unije), v nasprotju z dejstvi, tj. povečanjem uvoza v Unijo kljub veljavni protidampinški dajatvi.
Interpipe Group's claim was therefore rejected.
Nazadnje se Komisija v zvezi s trditvijo o diverzifikaciji izvoza sklicuje na uvodno izjavo 116, v kateri je navedeno, da na nekaterih pomembnih tretjih trgih zdaj velja več omejitev trgovanja za Ukrajino.
With regard to the second limb in recital (118), the Commission maintained that the facts unequivocally showed a different evolution in the export behaviour of Ukrainian exporting producers in the Union market, as compared to the projections made by the Interpipe Group.
Domnevno povečanje števila držav uvoznic bi torej bilo treba proučiti skupaj z zgoraj omenjenimi omejitvami trgovanja.
The Commission did not contest the trends on domestic consumtpion and other export destinations described by the Interpipe Group.
Zato je bila ta trditev glede na ugotovitve v zvezi s privlačnostjo trga Unije, neizkoriščeno zmogljivostjo in nekaterimi omejitvami trgovanja na nekaterih tretjih trgih zavrnjena.
Rather, the Commission pointed out that the conclusions/predictions drawn from such trends by the Interpipe Group (with respect to how they would affect the Ukrainian producers' approach towards the Union market) were at odds with the facts, i.e. an increase of imports to the Union even with an anti-dumping duty in place.
Na koncu je skupina Interpipe oporekala analizi Komisije glede prihodnjega sporazuma o skupnem podjetju z enim od ključnih proizvajalcev EU.
Lastly, in the context of the claim of export diversification, the Commission refers to recital (116) above, whereby it was shown that there were several trade restrictions currently in place against Ukraine in some relevant third markets.
Komisija je svojo oceno v zvezi s tem vprašanjem pojasnila v drugem dodatnem razkritju družbi.
Therefore, the alleged increase of export destinations should be seen together with the above mentioned trade restrictions in other markets.
Prvič, glede na informacije, ki jih je Komisija imela na voljo, prihodnjega skupnega podjetja še niso odobrili vsi zadevni organi za konkurenco.
Consequently, in view of the findings established regarding attractiveness of the Union market, spare capacity and certain trade restrictions in some third markets, this claim was dismissed.
Zato v tej fazi ni mogoče sklepati, kakšen učinek bi lahko to skupno podjetje imelo na izvoz brezšivnih cevi skupine Interpipe v Unijo, če ga bo sploh imelo.
The Interpipe Group finally contested the Commission's analysis with regard to an upcoming joint venture agreement with one of the ‘key EU producers’.
Drugič, skupina Interpipe je potrdila, da skupno podjetje še ni bilo ustanovljeno.
The Commission explained its assessment with regard to this issue in the second additional disclosure to the company.
Tretjič, Komisija se sklicuje na svojo oceno v drugem dodatnem razkritju družbi, v katerem je poudarila tudi dejstvo, da ji je bil kljub več zahtevkom zavrnjen dostop do podrobnih podatkov o zadevnem sporazumu o skupnem podjetju, zato ni mogla oceniti učinkov, ki bi izhajali na primer iz morebitne prihodnje proizvodnje.
First, according the the information available to the Commission the upcoming joint venture has not been cleared by all the competition authorities concerned.
Glede na navedeno takrat še ni bilo mogoče sklepati o učinkih tega skupnega podjetja.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded at this stage what effect, if any, this joint venture could have on the exports of SPT from the Interpipe Group to the Union.
Komisija kljub temu dodaja, da so trditve v zvezi z možnim vplivom skupnega podjetja na trgu Unije in trditve skupine Interpipe v zvezi z verjetnostjo nadaljevanja dampinga med sabo v popolnem nasprotju, kar zadeva zmogljivost skupne Interpipe (ali njen neobstoj) za povečanje njenega izvoza v Unijo.
Second, Interpipe confirmed that the joint venture has not yet been established.
Sklep o verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga v primeru razveljavitve ukrepov
Third, the Commission refers to its assessment in the second additional disclosure to the company, where it also highlighted the fact that, despite several requests, it was refused access to the details of the joint venture agreement in question, so that no effects deriving from e.g. potential future production could be assessed.
Ob upoštevanju (i) nadaljevanja dampinških praks obeh držav v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom, (ii) precejšnjih neizkoriščenih zmogljivosti (ki skupaj znašajo več kot 800000 ton) in (iii) privlačnosti trga Unije je Komisija sklenila, da obstaja močna verjetnost, da se bo v primeru izteka ukrepov dampinški uvoz iz Ukrajine in Rusije še naprej v precejšnjem obsegu večal oziroma ponovil.
Accordingly, no conclusions could yet be drawn on the effects of that joint venture at the present point in time.
PROIZVODNJA UNIJE IN INDUSTRIJA UNIJE
Nevertheless, the Commission further adds that the claims with regard the potential impact of the joint venture in the Union market and the Interpipe Group's claims on the likelihood of continuation of dumping are in stark contradiction with each other as far as Interpipe's capability (or lack thereof) to increase its exports to the Union is concerned.
V obravnavanem obdobju je podobni izdelek proizvajalo 18 proizvajalcev v Uniji.
Conclusion on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping should measures be repealed
Šteje se, da predstavljajo industrijo Unije v smislu člena 4(1) in člena 5(4) osnovne uredbe, zato bodo v nadaljnjem besedilu imenovani „industrija Unije“.
In view of: (i) the continuation of dumping practices in the review investigation period from both countries; (ii) the significant spare capacities available (combining for more than 800000 tonnes); and (iii) the attractiveness of the Union market, the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that if measures were allowed to lapse, dumped imports from Ukraine and Russia would respectively continue to increase and recur in significant volumes.
Za določitev celotne proizvodnje Unije v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom so bile uporabljene vse razpoložljive informacije o industriji Unije, kot so informacije iz zahtevka, podatki, ki so jih proizvajalci Unije in vložnik sporočili pred začetkom preiskave in po njem, ter izpolnjeni vprašalniki vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije.
UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY
Na tej podlagi je bila celotna proizvodnja Unije ocenjena na približno 2,25 milijona ton v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom.
In the period considered, the like product was manufactured by 18 producers in the Union.
Ta podatek vključuje proizvodnjo vseh proizvajalcev Unije, in sicer proizvodnjo vzorčenih in nevzorčenih proizvajalcev, izračunano na podlagi preverjenih podatkov, ki jih je predložil vložnik.
They are deemed to constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation and will hereafter be referred to as the ‘Union industry’.
Kot je bilo navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 17 in 18, je bil končni vzorec štirih proizvajalcev izbran izmed 12 proizvajalcev Unije, ki so predložili informacije, zahtevane za izbor vzorca v fazi pred začetkom pregleda.
All available information concerning the Union industry, such as information provided in the request, data collected from Union producers and the applicant before and after initiation of the procedure and the questionnaire responses of the sampled Union producers, were used in order to establish the total Union production for the review investigation period.
Štirje vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije so predstavljali 30 % celotne ocenjene proizvodnje Unije v obdobju preiskave v zvezi s pregledom in 37 % celotne prodaje industrije Unije na trgu Unije.
On this basis, the total Union production was estimated to be around 2,25 million tonnes during the review investigation period.
Zato se končni vzorec šteje za reprezentativnega za celotno industrijo Unije.
This figure includes the production of all Union producers, both the sampled producers and non-sampled producers, calculated on the basis of verified data submited by the applicant.
VERJETNOST NADALJEVANJA ALI PONOVITVE ŠKODE