natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission informed interested parties that it had provisionally chosen Switzerland as a market economy third country (‘analogue country’) within the meaning of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku zainteresirane strani obvestila, da je začasno izbrala Švico kot tretjo državo s tržnim gospodarstvom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: primerljiva država) v smislu člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe.
Some of the interested parties supporting the complaint requested confidential treatment of their identities in fear of retaliation, as they purchase certain parts of their electric bicycles in the PRC.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani, ki so podprle pritožbo, so iz strahu pred maščevanjem zahtevale zaupno obravnavanje svojih identitet, saj nekatere dele svojih električnih koles kupujejo v LRK.
The Commission granted their requests after an assessment of the arguments brought forward.
Komisija je po presoji predloženih argumentov ugodila njihovim zahtevam.
The China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic products (‘CCCME’), and the Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles (‘CEIEB’), both representing several interested parties, submitted comments after the initiation of the proceeding.
Kitajska gospodarska zbornica za uvoz in izvoz strojev in elektronskih izdelkov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zbornica CCCME) in Združenje evropskih uvoznikov električnih koles (v nadaljnjem besedilu: združenje CEIEB), ki sta oba predstavljala več zainteresiranih strani, sta po začetku postopka predložila pripombe.
The CCCME argued that the reasons for which the Commission granted confidential treatment to the identity of some of the interested parties supporting the complaint were both insufficient and unfounded.
Zbornica CCCME je trdila, da so razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisija odobrila zaupno obravnavanje identitete nekaterih zainteresiranih strani, ki so podprle pritožbo, nezadostni in neutemeljeni.
According to the CCCME, some of the members of the Union Industry import complete electric bicycles from the PRC and thus, in light of Article 4(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, may be precluded from being considered as members of the Union Industry.
Po njenem mnenju nekateri člani industrije Unije iz LRK uvažajo celotna električna kolesa, zato jih ob upoštevanju člena 4(1)(a) osnovne uredbe ni treba šteti za člane industrije Unije.
The CCCME pointed out that confidential treatment of the identity of some of the interested parties precludes the exporting producers from properly examining the standing in this case.
Poudarila je, da zaradi zaupnega obravnavanja identitete nekaterih zainteresiranih strani proizvajalci izvozniki ne morejo ustrezno proučiti njihovega stališča v tem primeru.
In a similar vein, the CEIEB argued that the complaint does neither contain a list of all known Union producers of the like product, nor the volume and value produced by these producers.
Podobno je združenje CEIEB trdilo, da pritožba ne vsebuje seznama vseh znanih proizvajalcev podobnega izdelka v Uniji, kot tudi ne obsega in vrednosti, ki so ju proizvedli ti proizvajalci.
The complaint contained a list of known producers in the Union, as well as their total production volume.
Pritožba je vsebovala seznam znanih proizvajalcev v Uniji in njihov celotni obseg proizvodnje.
The CEIEB was, accordingly, able to assess the list of known Union producers of the like product.
Združenje CEIEB je zato lahko ocenilo seznam znanih proizvajalcev podobnega izdelka v Uniji.
This information allowed the CEIEB to identify that two companies listed as Union producers are also importing the product under investigation from the country concerned.
Združenje CEIEB je na podlagi teh informacij lahko ugotovilo, da družbi, navedeni kot proizvajalki Unije, tudi uvažata izdelek v preiskavi iz zadevne države.
It is therefore clear that the CEIEB could fully exercise their rights of defence in this respect.
Zato je jasno, da bi lahko združenje CEIEB v zvezi s tem v celoti uveljavljalo svoje pravice do obrambe.
The CCCME further argued that the complaint lacked the necessary level of sufficient evidence to result in the initiation of an investigation.
Zbornica CCCME je nadalje trdila, da pritožba ne vsebuje ustrezne ravni zadostnih dokazov, potrebnih za začetek preiskave.
The CCCME gave four reasons for this.
V podporo temu je navedla štiri razloge.
First, the import data, based on Chinese export statistics obtained from Chinese customs, together with the adjustments made to it to filter out the product subject to this investigation, should not be kept confidential and its source should be duly examined by the Commission.
Prvič, podatki o uvozu, ki temeljijo na kitajskih statističnih podatkih o izvozu, pridobljenih od kitajskih carinskih organov, skupaj s prilagoditvami, narejenimi za izbor izdelka v tej preiskavi, ne bi smeli ostati zaupni, Komisija pa bi morala njihov vir ustrezno proučiti.
Second, certain information in the complaint such as, for instance, the alleged overcapacity in the relevant sector in the PRC, would be misleading as they relate not only to the electric bicycles sector but electric bicycles and bicycles together.
Drugič, nekatere informacije v pritožbi, kot je na primer domnevna presežna zmogljivost v zadevnem sektorju v LRK, bi bile zavajajoče, saj se ne nanašajo le na sektor električnih koles, ampak sektor električnih koles in koles skupaj.
Similarly, the value of the Union's electric bicycles market would be overestimated as it covers all light electric vehicles and not only electric bicycles.
Podobno bi bila precenjena vrednost trga električnih koles v Uniji, saj ne zajema le električnih koles, ampak vsa lahka električna vozila.
Third, subsidisation claims made in the complaint would be unfounded and would merit their own anti-subsidy investigation.
Tretjič, trditve o subvencioniranju, navedene v pritožbi, bi bile neutemeljene in bi bilo treba zanje izvesti lastno protisubvencijsko preiskavo.
Fourth, according to the CCCME, the complaint made a series of unjustified claims that are harmful to the electric bicycles industry in the PRC, alleging that it is the Union producers who drive the innovation in this business and that the Chinese producers are merely replicating the status quo of the Union-developed electric bicycles technology.
Četrtič, po mnenju zbornice CCCME je bila v pritožbi predložena vrsta neutemeljenih trditev, ki škodijo industriji električnih koles v LRK, saj naj bi bili v skladu z njimi proizvajalci Unije gonilna sila inovacij v tej panogi, kitajski proizvajalci pa le posnemajo obstoječe stanje tehnologije električnih koles, razvite v Uniji.
The Commission carried out an examination of the complaint in accordance with Article 5 of the basic Regulation, coming to the conclusion that the requirements for initiation of an investigation were met, i.e. that the adequacy and accuracy of the evidence presented by the complainant was sufficient.
Komisija je izvedla preiskavo pritožbe v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredbe in sklenila, da so bile zahteve za začetek preiskave izpolnjene, tj. da sta bili ustreznost in točnost dokazov, ki jih je predložil pritožnik, zadostni.
According to Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, a complaint shall contain such information as is reasonably available to the complainant on the factors indicated therein.
V skladu s členom 5(2) osnovne uredbe pritožba vsebuje vse, pritožniku pod razumnimi pogoji dostopne informacije o dejavnikih, navedenih v osnovni uredbi.
On the basis of the evidence provided, the Commission deemed that requirement satisfied.
Komisija je na podlagi predloženih dokazov menila, da je navedena zahteva izpolnjena.
Regarding the Chinese import data argument, the Commission refers to section 3.2 of the registration Regulation and to section 4.3 of this Regulation, where that argument is sufficiently addressed.
Kar zadeva argument glede kitajskih podatkov o uvozu, se Komisija sklicuje na oddelek 3.2 uredbe o registraciji in oddelek 4.3 te uredbe, kjer je navedeni argument ustrezno obravnavan.
Regarding the overcapacity argument, it is indeed relevant to examine overcapacities for electric bicycles and bicycles together, since production capacity for bicycles can be converted to electric bicycles with little cost or effort (see recital 172), and there is evidence on record that this is indeed regularly done by companies producing both products.
Kar zadeva argument glede presežne zmogljivosti, je presežne zmogljivosti za električna kolesa in kolesa zagotovo treba proučiti skupaj, saj se lahko proizvodna zmogljivost za kolesa z malo stroški ali napora preoblikuje v proizvodno zmogljivost za električna kolesa (glej uvodno izjavo 172), in obstajajo dokazi, da je to redna praksa družb, ki proizvajajo oba izdelka.
Regarding the comments on alleged subsidisation on the Chinese market, on 21 December 2017, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation with regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the PRC and commenced a separate investigation.
Glede pripomb o domnevnem subvencioniranju na kitajskem trgu je Komisija 21. decembra 2017 začela protisubvencijsko preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom električnih koles s poreklom iz LRK v Unijo in začela ločeno preiskavo.
That investigation is still on-going.
Ta preiskava še poteka.
Finally, regarding the innovation and replication arguments, the accuracy of the allegations mentioned in point four had no weight on the Commission's assessment underlying the initiation of this case, as they do not fall within the factors considered for this purpose.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva argumenta glede inovacije in posnemanja, točnost teh trditev iz četrte točke ni vplivala na oceno Komisije, ki je podlaga za začetek tega primera, saj ne spadata med dejavnike, ki se upoštevajo v ta namen.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku navedla, da bo morda izbrala vzorec proizvajalcev izvoznikov, proizvajalcev Unije in nepovezanih uvoznikov v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
This sample consisted of four Union producers.
Ta vzorec je tako vključeval štiri proizvajalce Unije.
The sampled Union producers accounted for 60 % of the total production volume and 58 % of total sales of the Union industry.
Vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije so predstavljali 60 % celotnega obsega proizvodnje in 58 % celotne prodaje industrije Unije.
The EBMA claimed that the sample was overly focused on the Dutch market, and does not give appropriate weight to French producers.
Združenje EBMA je trdilo, da je vzorec preveč osredotočen na nizozemski trg in francoski proizvajalci niso ustrezno upoštevani.
The Commission noted that the sample included the largest markets for the product under investigation and the largest producers in terms of volume and sales on the Union market which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija je opozorila, da vzorec vključuje največje trge za izdelek v preiskavi ter največje proizvajalce po obsegu in prodaji na trgu Unije, ki jih je bilo v razpoložljivem času mogoče dovolj dobro proučiti.
The Commission also noted that the production of the French producers only account for a minor part of the production of electric bicycles in the Union.
Opozorila je tudi, da proizvodnja francoskih proizvajalcev predstavlja le manjši del proizvodnje električnih koles v Uniji.
It is therefore not necessary to include a French producer to ensure representativity of the sample.
Zato za zagotovitev reprezentativnosti vzorca ni treba vključiti francoskega proizvajalca.
One interested party suggested adding a German manufacturer to the sample.
Ena zainteresirana stran je predlagala, naj se v vzorec vključi nemški proizvajalec.
However, the company in question was not cooperating and the comment had therefore to be disregarded.
Vendar zadevna družba ni sodelovala, zato te trditve ni bilo mogoče upoštevati.
This did not affect the representativity of the sample, since the sample covered 60 % of the production volume, and did include a German manufacturer.
To ni vplivalo na reprezentativnost vzorca, saj je vzorec zajemal 60 % obsega proizvodnje in je vključeval nemškega proizvajalca.
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec, je nepovezane uvoznike pozvala, naj predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o začetku.
Twenty-one unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Zahtevane informacije je predložilo 21 nepovezanih uvoznikov, ki so se strinjali z vključitvijo v vzorec.
In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of five unrelated importers on the basis of the largest volume of imports into the Union.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe izbrala vzorec petih nepovezanih uvoznikov na podlagi največjega obsega uvoza v Unijo.
One interested party commented that the sample of importers is not representative, since it does not cover importers from Denmark, Germany, Italy and the UK, and overly focused on importers buying city electric bicycles.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da vzorec uvoznikov ni reprezentativen, saj ne zajema uvoznikov iz Danske, Nemčije, Italije in Združenega kraljestva ter je preveč osredotočen na uvoznike, ki kupujejo mestna električna kolesa.
However, the cooperating importers from Denmark, Germany and the UK were much smaller than the sampled importers, and no importers from Italy cooperated.
Vendar so bili sodelujoči uvozniki iz Danske, Nemčije in Združenega kraljestva precej manjši od vzorčenih uvoznikov, uvozniki iz Italije pa niso sodelovali.
Also, the sampled importers imported a wide range of products, including city electric bicycles, trekking electric bicycles, mountain electric bicycles and folding electric bicycles.
Prav tako so vzorčeni uvozniki uvažali raznovrstne izdelke, vključno z mestnimi, treking, gorskimi in zložljivimi električnimi kolesi.
The Commission also notes that the sample included the largest import volume which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija opozarja tudi, da je vzorec vključeval največji obseg uvoza, ki ga je bilo mogoče dovolj dobro preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
In light of the above, the Commission confirmed that the sample is representative of the cooperating importers.
Glede na navedeno je Komisija potrdila, da je vzorec reprezentativen za sodelujoče uvoznike.
Ninety-six exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Zahtevane informacije je predložilo 96 proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK, ki so se strinjali z vključitvijo v vzorec.
One producer reported no exports of the electric bicycles to the Union during the investigation period and therefore was not considered admissible to the sample.
En proizvajalec je sporočil, da v obdobju preiskave ni izvažal električnih koles v Unijo, zato se je štelo, da ga ni mogoče vključiti v vzorec.
The Commission provisionally selected a sample of four cooperating producer groups on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union.
Komisija je začasno izbrala vzorec štirih sodelujočih skupin proizvajalcev na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza v Unijo.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers of electric bicycles, and the authorities of the PRC, were consulted on the selected sample.
V skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe so bila z vsemi znanimi proizvajalci izvozniki električnih koles in organi LRK opravljena posvetovanja o izbranem vzorcu.
Three non-sampled cooperating exporting producers argued that they should be included in the sample due to allegedly particular features of their production or sales, which distinguish them from some or all sampled exporting producers.
Trije nevzorčeni sodelujoči proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da bi morali biti v vzorec vključeni zaradi domnevnih posebnosti njihove proizvodnje ali prodaje, zaradi katerih se razlikujejo od nekaterih ali vseh vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
These features are not relevant from the point of view of Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of which the sample is to be selected.
Te posebnosti niso pomembne z vidika člena 17(1) osnovne uredbe, na podlagi katerega je treba izbrati vzorec.
In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union, which can reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe izbrala vzorec na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza v Unijo, ki ga je mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
None of the three non-sampled exporting producers contested that they qualified for the sample according to this criterion, and none of them argued that the criterion for selecting the sample should be changed.
Nobeden od treh nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni trdil, da bi ga bilo treba v vzorec vključiti na podlagi tega merila, in nobeden ni trdil, da bi bilo treba spremeniti merilo za izbor vzorca.
Therefore, the three requests were rejected.
Zato so bile vse tri zahteve zavrnjene.
After the expiry of the deadline for sampling responses and after the sample was selected and questionnaires have already been sent, one exporting producer came forward and requested to be considered as cooperating, as it had responded in due time to the sampling exercise in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
Po izteku roka za odzive na vzorčenje ter po tem, ko je bil vzorec izbran in so bili vprašalniki že poslani, se je javil en proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je zahteval, naj se šteje za sodelujočega, ker se je pravočasno odzval na vzorčenje v vzporedni protisubvencijski preiskavi.
The request was denied as the company did not come forward in the due time in the present investigation.
Zahteva je bila zavrnjena, saj se družba ni pravočasno javila v tej preiskavi.
Six non-sampled exporting producers formally requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Šest nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je uradno zahtevalo individualno preiskavo na podlagi člena 17(3) osnovne uredbe.
Two of them requested market economy treatment, which makes for two additional market economy treatment claim forms to be analysed and verified.
Dva sta zahtevala tržnogospodarsko obravnavo, zaradi česar je treba analizirati in preveriti še dva dodatna obrazca zahtevka za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo.
Furthermore, three of the companies that formally requested individual examination are groups of companies with a total of six related traders.
Poleg tega so tri družbe od tistih, ki so uradno zahtevale individualno preiskavo, skupine družb s skupno šestimi povezanimi trgovci.
Their replies to the relevant part of the anti-dumping questionnaire would also have to be analysed and verified by the case teams.
Skupine, zadolžene za zadevo, bi morale analizirati in preveriti tudi zadevni del protidampinškega vprašalnika, ki so ga izpolnile te družbe.
The examination of such a high number of requests would be unduly burdensome and cannot be reasonably expected during the time available for this investigation.
Preiskava tako velikega števila zahtevkov bi predstavljala preveliko obremenitev in je ni mogoče razumno pričakovati v času, ki je na voljo za to preiskavo.
The Commission therefore decided not to grant any requests for individual examination.
Komisija se je zato odločila, da ne ugodi zahtevkom za individualno preiskavo.
For the purposes of Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission sent MET claim forms to all cooperating exporting producers in the PRC selected to be in the sample and to the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers that wished to apply for an individual dumping margin.
Komisija je za namene člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe poslala obrazce zahtevka za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo vsem sodelujočim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v LRK, ki so bili izbrani v vzorec, in nevzorčenim sodelujočim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so želeli zaprositi za individualno stopnjo dampinga.
Only one of the exporting producer groups in the PRC selected in the sample submitted an MET claim form, which was assessed by the Commission.
Samo ena od skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK, izbranih v vzorec, je predložila obrazec zahtevka za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo, ki ga je ocenila Komisija.
The Commission sent questionnaires to all sampled companies, to all exporting producers intending to ask individual examination and to 27 potential analogue country producers in Australia, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and the USA.
Komisija je vprašalnike poslala vsem vzorčenim družbam, vsem proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so nameravali zaprositi za individualno preiskavo, in 27 proizvajalcem v morebitnih primerljivih državah, tj. v Avstraliji, na Japonskem, v Mehiki, Južni Koreji, Švici, Tajvanu, na Tajskem, v Turčiji in ZDA.
The Commission received complete questionnaire replies from all sampled Union producers, all sampled unrelated importers, the sampled exporting producers in the PRC, the exporting producers in the PRC requesting individual examination and one analogue country producer from Switzerland.
Komisija je popolno izpolnjene vprašalnike prejela od vseh vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije, vseh vzorčenih nepovezanih uvoznikov, vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK, proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK, ki so zahtevali individualno preiskavo, in enega proizvajalca iz primerljive države, tj. Švice.
Eurosport DHS SA (Deva, Romania), and their related company Prophete GmbH & Co. KG (Rheda-Wiedenbrück, Germany);
Eurosport DHS SA (Deva, Romunija) in njegova povezana družba Prophete GmbH & Co. KG (Rheda-Wiedenbrück, Nemčija),
Derby Cycle Holding GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany);
Derby Cycle Holding GmbH (Cloppenburg, Nemčija),
Koninklijke Gazelle NV (Dieren, The Netherlands);
Koninklijke Gazelle NV (Dieren, Nizozemska);
Bodo Vehicle Group Co., Ltd(Tianjin);
Bodo Vehicle Group Co., Ltd.
Jinhua Vision Industry Co., Ltd and Yongkang Hulong Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd (Jinhua);
Giant Electric Vehicle Co. (Kunshan), Ltd; Giant (Kitajska) Co. (Kunshan), Ltd. in Giant (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.
Producers in an analogue country:
Jinhua Vision Industry Co., Ltd in Yongkang Hulong Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd.
(Amsterdam, the Netherlands);
(Suzhou);
(Nunspeet, the Netherlands);
proizvajalci v primerljivi državi:
Related importers in the Union:
Bicycletec AG; (Huttwil, Švica);
(Lelystad, the Netherlands);
nepovezani uvozniki v Uniji:
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
(Nunspeet, Nizozemska);
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
povezani uvozniki v Uniji:
The product concerned is cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 87116010 and ex87116090 (TARIC code 8711609010) (‘the product concerned’).
(Düsseldorf, Nemčija).
This definition covers various types of electric bicycles.
Preiskava dampinga in škode je zajemala obdobje od 1. oktobra 2016 do 30. septembra 2017 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obdobje preiskave ali OP).
Like product
ZADEVNI IZDELEK IN PODOBNI IZDELEK
The investigation showed that the following products have the same basic physical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:
Zadevni izdelek
the product concerned;
Zadevni izdelek so kolesa s pedali, s pomožnim električnim motorjem, s poreklom iz LRK, ki se trenutno uvrščajo pod oznaki KN 87116010 in ex87116090 (oznaka TARIC 8711609010) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadevni izdelek).
the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Switzerland, which served provisionally as an analogue country;
Ta opredelitev zajema različne vrste električnih koles.