natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the principles of Community customs law and for the purposes of the application of an antidumping duty such as that laid down by Commission Decision No 67/94/ECSC of 12 January 1994 imposing a provisional antidumping duty on imports into the Community of hematite pig iron, originating in Brazil, Poland, Russia and Ukraine, the customs authorities are not at liberty to determine the customs value on the basis of a price fixed on the occasion of a sale prior to the one on the basis of which the customs valuation was made, if the price declared is the price actually paid or payable by the importer.
V skladu z načeli carinskega prava Skupnosti in za namene uporabe protidampin�ke dajatve, kot je določena z Odločbo Komisije 67/94/ESPJ z dne 12. januarja 1994 o uvedbi začasne protidampin�ke dajatve na uvoz surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, s poreklom iz Brazilije, Poljske, Rusije in Ukrajine v Skupnost, carinski organi ne morejo prosto izbirati carinske vrednosti na podlagi cene, določene ob prodaji, ki je bila določena pred tisto, na podlagi katere se je opravilo carinsko vrednotenje, če je prijavljena cena cena, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati.
If, however, the customs authorities have reasonable doubts that the declared value represents the total amount actually paid or payable for the goods declared, they may, if those doubts are confirmed after having asked for additional information and after having provided the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond, as provided for in the Customs Code and the implementing regulation, calculate the customs value for purposes of the application of the antidumping duty by reference to a price agreed on the occasion of a prior sale of the goods concerned for export to the Community.
Vendar, če carinski organi upravičeno dvomijo, da prijavljena vrednost pomeni celoten plačan znesek ali znesek, ki ga je treba plačati za zadevno blago, smejo – če se ti dvomi potrdijo, potem ko zaprosijo za dodatne informacije in potem ko so zadevni osebi primerno omogočili, da odgovori, kot določata Carinski zakonik in Izvedbena uredba – carinsko vrednost za namene uporabe protidampin�ke dajatve izračunati na podlagi cene, ki je bila dogovorjena ob prej�nji prodaji zadevnega blaga za izvoz v Skupnost.
2008 — CASE C-263/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-263/06 generalni pravobranilec: J.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mazák, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Decision No 67/94/ECSC of 12 January 1994 imposing a provisional antidumping duty on imports into the Community of hematite pig iron, originating in Brazil, Poland, Russia and Ukraine (OJ 1994 L 12, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 1 Odločbe Komisije 67/94/ESPJ z dne 12. januarja 1994 o uvedbi začasne protidampin�ke dajatve na uvoz surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, s poreklom iz Brazilije, Poljske, Rusije in Ukrajine v Skupnost (UL L 12, str.
5), read in conjunction with Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
5), v povezavi s členi od 29 do 31 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti (UL L 302, str.
1) (‘the Community Customs Code’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Carinski zakonik Skupnosti).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Carboni e derivati Srl (‘Carboni’), on the one hand, and the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance) (‘the Ministry’), and Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA (‘RAS’), on the other, concerning the determination, for the purpose of applying a variable antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94, of the customs value of a consignment of hematite pig iron originating in Russia and imported into the European Community.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru postopka med Carboni e derivati Srl (v nadaljevanju: Carboni) ter Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance, v nadaljevanju: Ministero) in Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA (v nadaljevanju: RAS) glede določanja carinske vrednosti po�iljke surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, s poreklom iz Rusije, ki je bila uvožena v Evropsko skupnost, za uporabo spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene z Odločbo �t. 67/94.
The basic antidumping rules and the specific antidumping rules
Temeljna protidampinška ureditev in posebna protidampinška ureditev
Articles 1, 2 and 13 of Commission Decision No 2424/88/ECSC of 29 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p.
V Odločbi Komisije 2424/88/ESPJ z dne 29. julija 1988 o za�čiti proti dampin�kemu ali subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo (UL L 209, str.
18) (‘the basic decision’) provide as follows:
18, v nadaljevanju: osnovna odločba), je v členih 1, 2 in 13 določeno:
‘Article 1
„Prvi člen
This Decision lays down provisions for protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community.
Ta odločba vzpostavlja določbe o za�čiti proti dampin�kemu ali subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo.
2008 — CASE C-263/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-263/06
An antidumping duty may be applied to any dumped product whose release for free circulation in the Community causes injury.
Protidampin�ka dajatev se lahko nana�a na vsak izdelek, ki je predmet dampinga, kadar njegova sprostitev v prosti promet v Skupnosti povzroča �kodo.
General provisions on duties
Splo�ne določbe na področju dajatev
Such measures shall indicate in particular the amount and type of duty imposed, the product covered, the country of origin or export, the name of the supplier, if practicable, and the reasons on which the measures are based.
Ti ukrepi opredelijo zlasti znesek in vrsto uvedene dajatve, zadevni izdelek, državo porekla ali izvoza, ime izdelovalca, če je to možno, in razloge, na katerih temeljijo.
The amount of such duties shall not exceed the dumping margin provisionally estimated or finally established or the amount of the subsidy provisionally estimated or finally established; it should be less if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury.
Znesek teh začasno ocenjenih ali dokončno določenih dajatev ne preseže stopnje dampinga ali zneska subvencije; biti bi moral nižji, če ta nižja dajatev zadostuje za pokritje �kode.
On 12 January 1994, the Commission of the European Communities adopted Decision No 67/94 on the basis of Article 11 of the basic decision, which provides, inter alia, for the imposition of provisional antidumping duties.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti je 12. januarja 1994 sprejela Odločbo �t.
Recitals (64) to (67) in the preamble to Decision No 67/94 provide as follows:
67/94 na podlagi člena 11 osnovne odločbe, v katerem je med drugim določena možnost uvedbe začasnih protidampin�kih dajatev.
A calculation was made in order to establish the price level at which the imports concerned cease to cause material injury to the Community industry. …
Komisija je izračunala raven cene, pri kateri ta uvoz ne povzroča več znatne �kode industriji Skupnosti. […]
The Commission considers that in addition to restoring fair competition on the hematite pig-iron market, the measures should at the same time enable the exporting countries to secure a better return on their exports of the product concerned.
Komisija meni, da ukrep ne bo prispeval samo k ponovni vzpostavitvi lojalne konkurence na trgu surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, temveč bi moral hkrati izvoznim državam omogočiti, da si zagotovijo vi�ji izkupiček od izvoza zadevnega blaga.
The Commission considers the introduction of a minimum price more appropriate in this particular case than any other type of measure in order to achieve these aims.
Komisija meni, da je uvedba najnižje uvozne cene za dosego teh ciljev v tem posebnem primeru primernej�a od kateregakoli drugega ukrepa.
The Commission has found that since the minimum import price considered necessary to remove the injurious effects of the dumping is, in each case, lower than the normal value established for the companies concerned, the provisional antidumping duty as provided for in Article 13(3) of Decision No 2424/88/ECSC does not exceed the dumping margins established.’
Komisija je ugotovila, da začasna protidampin�ka dajatev – ker je najnižja uvozna cena, ki se obravnava kot nujna za odpravo �kodljivih učinkov dampinga, v vsakem primeru nižja od normalne vrednosti, določene za zadevne družbe, – predvidena v členu 13(3) Odločbe �t. [2424/88], ni vi�ja od določenih stopenj dampinga.“
Article 1 of Decision No 67/94 provides as follows:
V členu 1 Odločbe �t. 67/94 je določeno:
Article 1(2) thereof provides as follows:
V njenem členu 1(2) je določeno:
‘The amount of the duty shall be the difference between the price of ECU 149/tonne and the accepted customs value (free at EC frontier) in all cases where this value is less than the above price.’
„Znesek [navedene] dajatve je razlika med ceno v vi�ini 149 ECU na tono in priznano carinsko vrednostjo (prosto na meji Skupnosti) v vseh primerih, v katerih je ta vrednost nižja od zgornje cene.“
The Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions
Carinski zakonik Skupnosti in njegove izvedbene določbe
Articles 28 to 31 of the Community Customs Code provide as follows:
V členih od 28 do 31 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti je določeno:
The provisions of this Chapter shall determine the customs value for the purposes of applying the Customs Tariff of the European Communities and non-tariff measures laid down by Community provisions governing specific fields relating to trade in goods.
Določbe tega poglavja določajo carinsko vrednost za uporabo carinske tarife Evropskih skupnosti in drugih ukrepov, kot so tarifni, določenih s posebnimi določbami Skupnosti na področju blagovne menjave.
(d) that the buyer and seller are not related, or, where the buyer and seller are related, that the transaction value is acceptable for customs purposes under paragraph 2.
[…] d) kupec in prodajalec nista povezana ali, v primeru, da sta povezana, če je transakcija vrednost v skladu z odstavkom 2 sprejemljiva za carinske namene.
2. (a) In determining whether the transaction value is acceptable for the purposes of paragraph 1, the fact that the buyer and the seller are related shall not in itself be sufficient grounds for regarding the transaction value as unacceptable.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je transakcijska vrednost sprejemljiva za izvajanje odstavka 1, dejstvo, da sta kupec in prodajalec povezana, samo po sebi �e ne predstavlja zadostnega razloga, da bi se transakcijska vrednost �tela za nesprejemljivo.
Where necessary, the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the relationship did not influence the price.
Če je potrebno, se preverijo okoli�čine, ki spremljajo prodajo, in sprejme transakcijska vrednost, če povezanost ni vplivala na ceno.
If, in the light of information provided by the declarant or otherwise, the customs authorities have grounds for considering that the relationship influenced the price, they shall communicate their grounds to the declarant and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Če imajo carinski organi na podlagi informacij, ki jih je zagotovil deklarant ali so jih pridobili iz drugih virov, razlog za domnevo, da je povezanost vplivala na ceno, deklaranta seznanijo z njihovimi razlogi in mu dajo zadostno možnost za odgovor.
If the declarant so requests, the communication of the grounds shall be in writing.
Na zahtevo deklaranta je treba razloge sporočiti pisno.
Where the customs value cannot be determined under Article 29, it is to be determined by proceeding sequentially through subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 …
Če carinske vrednosti ni mogoče določiti z uporabo člena 29, je treba po vrstnem redu uporabiti točke (a), (b), (c) in (d) odstavka 2 […]
(c) the value based on the unit price at which the imported goods [or] identical or similar imported goods are sold within the Community in the greatest aggregate quantity to persons not related to the sellers;
Carinske vrednosti, določene z uporabo tega člena, so naslednje: a) transakcijska vrednost enakega blaga […] b) transakcijska vrednost podobnega blaga […] c) vrednost na podlagi cene na enoto, po kateri se uvoženo blago ali uvoženo enako ali podobno blago v največji skupni količini proda v Skupnosti osebam, ki niso povezane s prodajalci; d) izračunana vrednost […]
Where the customs value of imported goods cannot be determined under Articles 29 or 30, it shall be determined, on the basis of data available in the Community, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of:
Če carinske vrednosti uvoženega blaga ni mogoče določiti z uporabo členov 29 in 30, se ta na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov v Skupnosti določi z ustreznimi metodami, ki so skladne z načeli in splo�nimi določbami:
— the agreement on implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
– sporazuma o izvajanju člena VII Splo�nega sporazuma o tarifah in trgovini,
— Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
– člena VII Splo�nega sporazuma o tarifah in trgovini,
— the provisions of this chapter.
– z določbami tega poglavja.
No customs value shall be determined under paragraph 1 on the basis of:
Carinska vrednost, določena z uporabo odstavka 1, ne temelji na:
(b) a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values;
[…] g) poljubnih ali fiktivnih vrednostih.“
(g) arbitrary or fictitious values.’
Uredba Komisije (EGS) �t.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p.
2454/93 z dne 2. julija 1993 o določbah za izvajanje Uredbe �t. 2913/92 (UL L 253, str.
1) (‘the implementing regulation’) contains an Annex 23 entitled ‘Interpretative Notes on Customs Value’.
1, v nadaljevanju: izvedbena uredba) vsebuje Prilogo 23, z naslovom „Pojasnjevalne opombe o carinski vrednosti“.
Point 2 of the notes in that annex concerning Article 31(1) of the Community Customs Code provides as follows:
V točki 2 opomb k tej prilogi glede člena 31(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti je določeno:
‘The methods of valuation to be employed under Article 31(1) [of this Code] should be those laid down in Articles 29 and 30(2) [thereof], but a reasonable flexibility in the application of such methods would be in conformity with the aims and provisions of Article 31(1).’
„Metode vrednotenja, ki se uporabljajo na podlagi člena 31(1) [tega zakonika], morajo biti tiste, ki so določene v [njegovih] členih 29 in 30(2), vendar bi bila razumna prožnost pri uporabi teh metod v skladu s cilji in določbami člena 31(1).“
In that regulation, the Commission laid down a series of provisions for the implementation for the Community Customs Code.
S to uredbo je Komisija določila izvedbene določbe Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
In particular, Article 147(1) of that regulation, as it was in force in June 1994, that is to say, at the moment when the consignment of hematite pig iron originating in Russia which is at the origin of the main proceedings was imported, provided as follows:
Zlasti člen 147(1) navedene uredbe, ki je veljal junija 1994, torej ob uvozu po�iljke surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, s poreklom iz Rusije, glede katerega pred nacionalnim sodi�čem poteka postopek v glavni stvari, je določal:
Articles 178 to 181 of the implementing regulation concern the declaration of particulars and the documents to be furnished relating to customs value.
Členi od 178 do 181 izvedbene uredbe se nana�ajo na deklaracijo podatkov in predložitev dokumentov o carinski vrednosti.
1), added to the implementing regulation an Article 181a, which is worded as follows:
1) je bil k izvedbeni uredbi dodan člen 181a, v katerem je določeno:
The customs authorities need not determine the customs valuation of imported goods on the basis of the transaction value method if, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 2, they are not satisfied, on the basis of reasonable doubts, that the declared value represents the total amount paid or payable as referred to in Article 29 of the [Community Customs] Code.
Carinskim organom ni treba določati carinske vrednosti uvoznega blaga na osnovi metode transakcijske vrednosti, če v skladu s postopkom iz odstavka 2 niso prepričani, na podlagi upravičenega dvoma, da prijavljena vrednost predstavlja celoten znesek, plačan ali ki se plača, kakor je navedeno v členu 29 [Carinskega] zakonika [Skupnosti].
The main proceedings and the question referred to the Court
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
In May 1994, Carboni acquired from Commercio Materie Prime CMP SpA (‘CMP’), which has its seat in Genoa (Italy), a consignment of hematite pig iron originating in Russia which CMP had itself acquired from OME-DTECH Electronics Ltd, a company with its seat in Limassol (Cyprus) (‘OME-DTECH’).
Maja 1994 je družba Carboni od družbe Commercio Materie Prime CMP SpA (v nadaljevanju: CMP), ki ima sedež v Italiji, prejela po�iljko surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, z ruskim poreklom, ki ga je CMP prejela od družbe OME-DTECH Electronics LTD (v nadaljevanju: OME-DTECH), ki ima sedež v Limassolu (Ciper).
In June 1994, Carboni’s customs agent, SPA-MAT Srl, presented the declaration relating to importation of the consignment to the customs at Molfetta (Italy) on behalf of Carboni, its value being declared on the basis of ECU 151 per tonne. The consignment was cleared through customs in that port after payment of customs duties on 14 June 1994.
Meseca junija 1994 je carinski zastopnik družbe Carboni, družba SPA-MAT Srl, v imenu družbe Carboni pri carini v Molfetti (Italija) vložil deklaracijo o uvozu te po�iljke, katere prijavljena vrednost je bila 151 ECU na tono in ki je bila v tem pristani�ču ocarinjena po plačilu carinskih dajatev, ki so bile plačane 14. junija 1994.
By notice of assessment of 16 July 1994, the customs office informed Carboni through SPA-MAT Srl that the amount payable had to be increased, pursuant to Decision No 67/94, by an antidumping duty equivalent to the difference between the price of ECU 149 per tonne and the customs value, on the ground that the customs office considered the declared value to be inaccurate.
Z obvestilom o izterjavi z dne 16. julija 1994 so carinski organi prek družbe SPA-MAT Srl obvestili družbo Carboni, da je v skladu z Odločbo �t. 67/94 dolgovani znesek treba povi�ati za protidampin�ko dajatev, ki je enaka razliki med ceno 149 ECU na tono in carinsko vrednostjo, za katero so ti organi menili, da ni resnična.
Carboni provided security for payment of the amount demanded by way of antidumping duty through the intermediary of the guarantor, namely RAS, but brought an action before the Tribunale de Bari (Bari District Court) (Italy) against the Ministry and RAS in which it claimed that the demand for payment of an antidumping duty and, consequently, the need to lodge a guarantee were unfounded.
Družba Carboni je zagotovila zavarovanje za plačilo zneska, ki ga je na podlagi protidampin�ke dajatve zahteval porok, združenje RAS, vendar je zoper Ministero in združenje RAS vložila tožbo pri Tribunale di Bari (sodi�če v Bariju) ter z njo izpodbijala utemeljenost ugovora zoper protidampin�ko dajatev in zato nujnost položitve zavarovanja.
Carboni claimed, inter alia, that the price of ECU 151 per tonne stated on the invoice issued by CMP was higher than the minimum import price (ECU 149 per tonne) and, consequently, that there were no grounds for levying an antidumping duty.
Družba Carboni je zlasti trdila, da je bila cena 151 ECU na tono, navedena v računu, ki ga je izdala družba CMP, vi�ja od najnižje uvozne cene (149 ECU na tono), tako da protidampin�ka dajatev ne bi smela biti naložena.
It pointed out in this connection that the invoice in respect of the earlier sale, issued by OME-DTECH, showed that the sale price to CMP was ECU 130.983 per tonne and was therefore lower than the minimum import price fixed by Decision No 67/94.
Glede tega je pojasnilo, da je bila na računu o predhodni prodaji, ki ga je izdala družba OME DTECH, navedena prodajna cena družbi CMP v vi�ini 130,983 ECU na tono, kar je izkazovalo negativno razliko v razmerju do najnižje uvozne cene, določene z Odločbo �t. 67/94.
Carboni’s action was dismissed by decision of the Tribunale di Bari of 30 September 2000 on the ground, inter alia, that the protection of the European market through the imposition of an antidumping duty had to take place at the time of entry into the Community, that is to say, at the time of first acquisition by a Community operator.
Tožbo družbe Carboni je Tribunale di Bari zavrnilo s sodbo z dne 30. septembra 2000 med drugim zato, ker je bilo treba evropski trg z naložitvijo protidampin�kih dajatev za�čititi ob vstopu v Evropsko skupnost, torej ko je subjekt Skupnosti blago prejel prvič.
Carboni appealed against that decision to the Corte d’appello di Bari (Bari Court of Appeal), which dismissed the appeal as unfounded.
Družba Carboni je proti tej sodbi vložila pritožbo pri Corte d‘apello di Bari (pritožbeno sodi�če v Bariju), to pa jo je zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.
According to that court, the expression ‘release for free circulation’ within the terms of Article 201 of the Community Customs Code means release onto the Community market, which must refer to the commercial stage of acquisition of the goods by the first Community operator.
Po mnenju tega sodi�ča izraz „sprostitev v prosti promet“ v smislu člena 201 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti pomeni vnos blaga na trg Skupnosti, kar pomeni, da je treba upo�tevati komercialno fazo, v kateri subjekt Skupnosti prvič prejme blago.
Were it otherwise, the antidumping legislation could easily be circumvented.
Sicer bi bilo mogoče protidampin�ko ureditev zlahka obiti.
Carboni lodged an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) (Italy).
Zoper to sodbo je družba Carboni vložila pritožbo pri Corte Suprema di Cassazione (kasacijsko sodi�če).
In that appeal, Carboni argued, inter alia, that release for free circulation occurs only at the time when the goods enter the customs territory of the Community, and not when they are simply acquired by a Community subject in a State outside the Community.
V njej je družba Carboni med drugim na eni strani zatrjevala, da do sprostitve v prosti promet pride �ele ob vstopu blaga na carinsko območje Skupnosti, ne pa, ko ga prejme subjekt Skupnosti v državi, ki ni članica Skupnosti.
The purpose of the antidumping duty, it contended, is not to penalise the producing State in order to prevent it from exporting at a certain price, but to ensure that goods sold at below cost price do not enter the Community market, with adverse effects on competition.
Naloga protidampin�ke dajatve naj namreč ne bi bila kaznovanje države proizvajalke s tem, da bi dajatev preprečila izvoz po določeni ceni, temveč izogniti se temu, da bi blago, ki se prodaja z izgubo, vstopilo na trg Skupnosti, s čimer bi povzročilo negativne učinke na konkurenco.
Carboni also referred to Article 1(2) of Decision No 1751/94 and the introductory part of the first subparagraph of Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, which provides that ‘[t]he customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, that is, the price actually paid’.
Na drugi strani se je družba Carboni sklicevala na člen 1(2) Odločbe �t. 1751/94 in člen 29(1), prvi pododstavek, uvodni del, Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, v katerem je določeno, da je „carinska vrednost uvoženega blaga […] njegova transakcijska vrednost, to pomeni cena, ki je bila […] dejansko plačana“.