natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Carboni argued that, as there were no doubts as to the correctness of the invoice relating to the purchase issued by CMP, the amount paid by the latter was irrelevant since the difference in price between the two sales was justified by various factors such as payment for intermediary activities, transport costs and assumption of risks.
Družba Carboni je na podlagi tega zaključila, da zato, ker ni določb, ki bi se nana�ale na verodostojnost računa o prejetju, ki ga je izdala družba CMP, znesek, ki ga je plačala družba CMP, naj ne bi bil upo�teven, ker so razliko v ceni med obema prodajama utemeljevali različni dejavniki, namreč plačilo za posredovanje, prevozni stro�ki in prevzem tveganj.
According to the Ministry, the ratio legis of the antidumping rules leads to the conclusion that the prejudice to the Community market arises not only with the actual entry into the Community customs territory of goods being sold at below cost price, but also in the case where a Community operator acquires those goods at a lower price than that which other Community operators have to pay.
Po mnenju Ministero ratio legis protidampin�ke ureditve vodi do zaključka, da �koda, ki nastaja trgu Skupnosti, ne nastane samo, ko blago, ki se prodaja z izgubo, dejansko vstopi na carinsko območje Skupnosti, temveč tudi, ko subjekt Skupnosti prejme navedeno blago po ceni, ki je nižja od cene, ki jo morajo plačati drugi subjekti Skupnosti.
The Corte suprema di cassazione has doubts as to whether the customs authorities may use, as the basis for applying an antidumping duty, a value corresponding to the price indicated for the goods in a sale prior to the sale on the basis of which the customs declaration was made or, in other words, whether the relevant time is that of the sale concluded for purposes of export to the customs territory of the Community, independently of the submission to customs.
Corte suprema di cassazione spra�uje, ali lahko carinski organi kot osnovo za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve upo�tevajo vrednost, ki ustreza prodajni ceni, ki je bila za zadevno blago določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, ali z drugimi besedami, ali je odločilen trenutek trenutek zaključene prodaje za izvoz na carinsko območje Skupnosti, neodvisno od predložitve v carinjenje.
The Corte suprema di cassazione thus considers it necessary to establish whether the freedom of the operator to choose, for the purpose of determining the customs value, the price paid for the goods in question in a transaction prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made, has its counterpart in an identical power on the part of the customs authorities.
Corte suprema di cassazione namreč meni, da je treba ugotoviti, ali pravici subjekta, da za določanje carinske vrednosti izbere ceno, ki jo je plačal za zadevno blago med transakcijo, ki se je opravila pred transakcijo, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, ustreza enako pooblastilo carinskih organov.
Having determined that the point of law raised in the main proceedings had not yet been decided by the Court, the Corte suprema di cassazione decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Po ugotovitvi, da Sodi�če o pravnem vpra�anju, ki se zastavlja v okviru spora o glavni stvari, �e ni odločalo, je Corte suprema di cassazione prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje :
‘According to the principles of Community customs law and for the purpose of application of an antidumping duty such as that laid down by Commission Decision No 67/94 …, may the customs authority refer to the price indicated in a sale of the same goods which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made, where the buyer is a Community subject or, in any case, the sale took place for import into the Community?’
„Ali se carinski organ za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, kot jo določa Odločba […] �t. 67/94/ESPJ, glede na načela carinskega prava Skupnosti lahko sklicuje na prodajno ceno istega blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, če je kupec državljan Skupnosti oziroma je bila prodaja opravljena za uvoz v Skupnost?“
The question referred to the Court
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
By its question, the referring court asks essentially whether, for the application of the antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94, the rules laid down in the relevant Community customs legislation permit the customs authorities to determine the customs value on the basis of the price indicated in a sale of the same goods which took place prior to that in respect of which the customs declaration was made.
Z zastavljenim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene z Odločbo �t. 67/94, upo�tevna pravila carinskega prava Skupnosti carinskim organom dopu�čajo ugotovitev carinske vrednosti na podlagi prodajne cene istega blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija.
In order to answer that question, it is first of all necessary to determine whether the customs authorities may, as a general rule, refer, for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by the abovementioned decision, to the price indicated in a prior sale of the same goods, even if the declared price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer. If the answer to that question is in the negative,
Za odgovor na to vpra�anje je najprej treba ugotoviti, ali se carinski organi za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene z navedeno odločbo, na splo�no lahko sklicujejo na prodajno ceno istega blaga, ki je bila določena predhodno, čeprav prijavljena
CARBONI E DERIVATI it will then be necessary to determine whether the customs authorities may at least do so on a case-by-case basis in the case where they have doubts as to the accuracy of the price mentioned in the customs declaration.
CARBONI E DERIVATI cena ustreza ceni, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati. Če je odgovor nikalen, je treba nato preveriti, ali imajo carinski organi to možnost vsaj od primera do primera, kadar izpodbijajo verodostojnost cene, navedene v carinski deklaraciji.
Whether the customs authorities may refer to a prior sale for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 in the case where the declared price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer
Možnost carinskih organov, da se za uporabo protidampinške dajatve, uvedene z Odločbo št. 67/94, sklicujejo na predhodno prodajo, pri kateri prijavljena cena ustreza ceni, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati.
It must be pointed out, first of all, that the expression ‘customs value’ corresponds to the customs value of the imported goods, as defined by the customs rules (see, by analogy, Case C-93/96 ICT [1997] ECR I-2881, paragraph 14).
Najprej je treba pojasniti, da besede „prijavljena carinska vrednost“ pomenijo carinsko vrednost uvoženega blaga, kot je določena s carinskimi predpisi (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 29. maja 1997 v zadevi ICT, C-93/96, Recueil, str.
Bearing in mind the time at which the facts in the main proceedings took place, reference must be made to Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, which defines that expression as ‘the transaction value, that is, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community’, adjusted, where necessary, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Community Customs Code.
I-2881, točka 14). Ob upo�tevanju časa nastanka dejstev v postopku v glavni stvari se je treba sklicevati na člen 29(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, ki te besede opredeljuje kot „transakcijsk[o] vrednost, to pomeni cen[o], ki je bila za blago ob prodaji za izvoz na carinsko območje Skupnosti dejansko plačana ali ki jo je treba plačati“, po potrebi po uskladitvi, opravljeni v skladu z drugimi upo�tevnimi določbami Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
Article 29(1) provides that the customs value concerns only goods ‘sold for export to the customs territory of the Community’.
V navedenem členu 29(1) je določeno, da se carinska vrednost nana�a samo na blago, [ki je bilo prodano] za izvoz na carinsko območje Skupnosti.
It follows that it must be agreed, at
Iz tega izhaja, da je ob
2008 — CASE C-263/06 the time of sale, that the goods originating in a nonmember country will be transported into the customs territory of the Community (see, by analogy, with regard to Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 134, p.
2008 – ZADEVA C-263/06 prodaji treba izkazati, da bo blago s poreklom iz tretjih držav napoteno na carinsko območje Skupnosti (glede člena 3(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1224/80 z dne 28. maja 1980 o vrednotenju blaga za carinske namene, UL L 134, str.
1), a provision essentially identical to Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, Case C-11/89 Unifert [1990] ECR I-2275, paragraph 11).
1, glej po analogiji določbo, ki je v bistvu enaka členu 29(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, sodbo z dne 6. junija 1990 v zadevi Unifert, C-11/89, Recueil, str. I-2275, točka 11).
Under the first sentence of Article 147(1) of the implementing regulation, the fact that the goods which are the subject of a sale are declared for free circulation is to be regarded as adequate indication that the abovementioned condition has been fulfilled.
Glede na besedilo člena 147(1), prvi stavek, izvedbene uredbe dejstvo, da je blago, ki je predmet prodaje, prijavljeno za sprostitev v prosti promet, �teje za zadosten podatek, da je zgoraj navedeni pogoj izpolnjen.
The second sentence of Article 147(1), in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, provided that that indication was also to apply in the case of successive sales before valuation.
V drugem stavku navedenega člena 147(1) v različici, ki se je uporabljala v času nastanka dejstev postopka v glavni stvari, je bilo določeno, da to velja tudi pri zaporednih prodajah pred vrednotenjem.
Thus, in the case of successive sales, the prices relating to sales made after export, but before release into free circulation in the Community, may be taken into account for the purpose of determining the ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code (see, by analogy, Unifert, paragraph 13).
Tako se ob zaporednih prodajah cene, ki ustrezajo prodajam, ki so bile opravljene za izvozom, vendar pred sprostitvijo v prosti promet v Skupnosti, lahko upo�tevajo za določitev „transakcijske vrednosti“ v smislu člen 29(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Unifert, točka 13).
It follows that, in the case of successive sales of goods for importation into the customs territory of the Community, the importer is at liberty to select from the prices agreed for each of the sales the price which he will take as a basis for determining the customs value of the goods in question, provided that he can furnish to the customs authorities all the necessary particulars and documents relating to the price which he chooses (see, by analogy, Unifert, paragraphs 16 and 21).
Iz tega sledi, da lahko ob zaporednih prodajah blaga za njegov uvoz na carinsko območje Skupnosti uvoznik prosto izbere med ceno, dogovorjeno za vsako od teh prodaj, ki jo bo uporabil kot osnovo za določitev carinske vrednosti zadevnega blaga, če lahko glede cene, ki jo je izbral, predloži vsa dokazila in dokumentacijo, ki jih potrebujejo carinski organi (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Unifert, točki 16 in 21).
Next, it is necessary, on the basis of those clarifications as to the meaning of the expression ‘customs value’, which refers to the customs rules and thus gives the importer the choice set out in the previous paragraph, to determine the meaning of the term ‘declared’ added to that expression for the purpose of answering the question asked by the Corte suprema di cassazione as to whether the customs administration also has a choice and may also refer to the price indicated in a prior sale as the basis for the application of an antidumping duty.
Nato je treba za odgovor na vpra�anje Corte suprema di cassazione, ali ima tudi carinska uprava možnost izbire, če uporabi predhodno prodajno ceno kot osnove za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve – pri čemer izhajamo iz pojasnil glede pomena besed „carinska vrednost“, ki napotujejo na carinsko ureditev in tako uvozniku odpirajo to možnost izbire –, ugotoviti pomen dostavka „prijavljena“ v tej določbi.
The addition of the term ‘declared’ in Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94 emphasises that the basis for applying an antidumping duty is not the customs value as such but the customs value declared by the importer.
Z dodano besedo „prijavljena“ je v členu Odločbe �t. 67/94 izraženo, da osnova za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve ni carinska vrednost kot taka, temveč carinska vrednost, ki jo je prijavil uvoznik.
It follows from that provision, therefore, that the prices indicated in sales which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made by the importer cannot be taken into account for the application of an antidumping duty.
Iz navedene določbe torej izhaja, da cene prodaj, ki so se opravile pred prodajo, katere ceno je uvoznik uporabil za carinsko deklaracijo, ni mogoče upo�tevati za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve.
It thus appears that the very terms of Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94 preclude the customs authorities from being entitled to choose the price of the first sale as a basis for calculating the customs value for the purpose of determining an antidumping duty.
Tako se zdi, da besedilo člena 1(2) Odločbe �t. 67/94 nasprotuje temu, da bi carinski organi imeli možnost ceno prve prodaje izbrati kot osnovo carinske vrednosti za določitev protidampin�ke dajatve.
However, the Italian Government argues that, in the main proceedings, the customs authorities could have determined the customs duty on the basis of the sale of hematite pig iron by OME-DTECH to CMP, since the latter undertaking was itself a Community operator.
Vendar italijanska vlada zatrjuje, da so v postopku v glavni stvari carinski organi lahko določili carino na podlagi prodaje surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, družbe OME-DTECH družbi CMP, ker je bila slednja subjekt Skupnosti.
For its part, the Commission, although it acknowledges that the terms of Decision No 67/94 do not permit the calculation of the variable duty on any basis other than that of the price of the last transaction presented in the customs declaration, points out that the objective of an antidumping measure based on the fixing of a minimum import price may easily be circumvented and there is a ‘certain tension’ in the use of the price indicated in the last sale for the purposes of customs law, on the one hand, and of variable antidumping duties based on a minimum import price, on the other.
Na drugi strani Komisija sicer priznava, da besedilo Odločbe �t. 67/94 ne daje možnosti za izračun spremenljive dajatve drugače kot na podlagi cene, ki se nana�a na zadnjo transakcijo, ki je bila prijavljena v carinski deklaraciji, vendar poudarja, da je mogoče cilj protidampin�kega ukrepa, ki temelji na določitvi najnižje uvozne cene, zlahka obiti in da pri uporabi zadnje prodajne cene obstaja „določno trenje“ med ciljema carinske dajatve in spremenljivimi protidampin�kimi dajatvami, ki temeljijo na najnižji uvozni ceni.
In this regard, the terms of Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94 expressly and unambiguously provide that the point of reference in determining an antidumping duty is the declared customs value.
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da besedilo člena 1(2) Odločbe �t. 67/94 izrecno in nedvoumno določa, da je referenčna točka za določitev protidampin�ke dajatve prijavljena carinska vrednost.
It must first be established, therefore, whether the arguments put forward by the Italian Government and the Commission are well founded and, if necessary, whether they are of such a nature as to call into question the outcome that necessarily follows from the wording of Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94.
Tako je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali so utemeljene trditve italijanske vlade in Komisije, in če je tako, ali vzbujajo dvom v rezultat, ki izhaja iz besedila člena 1(2) Odločbe �t. 67/94.
With regard, first of all, to the Italian Government’s argument concerning the terms of Article 1(2) of Decision No 1751/94 imposing a definitive antidumping duty, the expression ‘accepted customs value’ in that provision is intended to express the obvious point that the price indicated by the person making the declaration is not as such conclusive for the purpose of determining an antidumping duty.
Prvič, glede trditve italijanske vlade v zvezi z besedilom 1(2) Odločbe �t. 1751/94 o uvedbi dokončne protidampin�ke dajatve je treba pripomniti, da je v tej določbi namen besed „priznana carinska vrednost“ le poudariti, da ni treba, da bi bila cena, ki jo je navedel deklarant, osnova za določitev protidampin�ke dajatve.
Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code provides that the customs value, that is to say, the transaction value, is subject to adjustment, where necessary, in accordance with Articles 32 and 33 of the Code.
V členu 29(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti je namreč določeno, da se carinska vrednost, torej transakcijska vrednost, po potrebi uskladi v skladu s členoma 32 in 33 istega zakonika.
In addition, as can be seen from Article 29(1)(d) and Article 29(2) of the Code, the customs authorities are entitled to examine the price indicated by the person making the declaration and to reject it where necessary.
Poleg tega so, kot na primer izhaja iz člena 29(1)(d) in (2) navedenega zakonika, carinski organi poobla�čeni preveriti ceno, ki jo navede deklarant, in jo zavrniti.
Secondly, the Italian Government contends that account should be taken of the objectives of the antidumping rules and, for that purpose, that all the steps in a successive sale should be considered, avoiding too formalist an approach.
Drugič, italijanska vlada zatrjuje, da je treba upo�tevati cilje protidampin�kih predpisov in v ta namen upo�tevati vse faze zaporedne prodaje, s čimer se izognemo preveč formalističnem pristopu.
In the case
Pri zaporednih prodajah, katerih rezultat je spro-
CARBONI E DERIVATI of successive sales giving rise to the release of goods into free circulation, the various sales which took place with a view to importation into the Community customs territory should be regarded as steps preliminary to that importation, with the result that the time to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the customs value for the application of an antidumping duty is necessarily the time at which the goods were first acquired by a Community operator, that being the time at which the goods entered the ‘Community circuit’.
CARBONI E DERIVATI stitev blaga v prosti promet, bi bilo treba različne prodaje, ki se opravijo za uvoz na carinsko območje Skupnosti, obravnavati kot predhodno fazo tega uvoza, tako da bi bil čas, ki bi ga bilo treba upo�tevati za ugotovitev carinske vrednosti za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, nujno čas, v katerem bi subjekt Skupnosti prvič prejel blago, kar je čas vstopa tega blaga v „obtok Skupnosti“.
As the Advocate General correctly noted in points 56 to 58 of his Opinion, it follows from Articles 1 and 2(1) of the basic decision that the rules on antidumping are aimed at protecting against dumped or subsidised imports and an antidumping duty may be applied to any dumped product the release of which for free circulation in the Community causes injury.
Kot je utemeljeno navedel generalni pravobranilec v točkah od 56 do 58 sklepnih predlogov, iz členov 1 in 2(1) osnovne odločbe izhaja, da je cilj protidampin�kih predpisov za�čita proti dampin�kemu ali subvencioniranemu uvozu in da je protidampin�ko dajatev mogoče uporabiti za kakr�en koli dampin�ki izdelek, katerega sprostitev v prosti promet v Skupnosti povzroča �kodo.
The antidumping legislation does not concern a sale of goods as such, such as the first sale of hematite pig iron by OME-DTECH to CMP in the main proceedings, as long as the goods are not actually exported to the Community customs territory or placed in free circulation within the Community.
Protidampin�ka pravila ne obravnavajo prodaje blaga – kot v obravnavanem primeru prve prodaje surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, družbe OME-DTECH družbi CMP –, preden je dejansko izvoženo na carinsko območje Skupnosti in spro�čeno v prosti promet v Skupnosti.
As can be seen from recitals (64) and (67) in the preamble to Decision No 67/94, in the case of hematite pig iron, the minimum price of ECU 149 per tonne represented the price level at which the imports concerned ceased to cause material injury to the Community industry.
Kot izhaja iz �tiriin�estdesete in sedemin�estdesete uvodne izjave Odločbe �t. 67/94, pomeni za surovo železo, pridobljeno iz hematita, najnižja cena 149 ECU na tono raven cene, v vi�ini katere ta uvoz ne povzroča več �kode industriji Skupnosti.
Thus, the objective of the antidumping rules does not involve, in principle, the levying of an antidumping duty established on the basis of the price indicated in a prior sale of the goods concerned if the price actually paid or payable by the person making the declaration is equivalent to or greater than the minimum price laid down in the antidumping measure.
Tako cilj protidampin�kih predpisov načeloma ne zahteva naložitve protidampin�ke dajatve, določene na podlagi predhodne prodajne cene zadevnega blaga, če je bila cena, ki jo je deklarant dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati, enaka ali vi�ja od najnižje cene, predvidene s protidampin�kih ukrepom.
The Italian Government, however, contends, more specifically, that it follows from the objective of Decision No 67/94 that, in the case of successive sales with a view to importation into the territory of the Community, precipitating the release of the goods into free circulation, the first acquisition of the goods by a Community operator is conclusive for the purpose of application of the antidumping duty.
Vendar italijanska vlada – če navedemo �e natančneje – meni, da iz cilja Odločbe �t. 67/94 izhaja, da je pri zaporednih prodajah za uvoz na območje Skupnosti, katerega rezultat je sprostitev v prosti promet, prvo prejetje blaga s strani subjekta Skupnosti odločilno za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve.
The harm to the Community market results not only from the actual release into the Community customs territory of goods being sold at below cost price, but also when an advantage is conferred on one Community trader who acquires goods at a lower price than do other Community traders.
Škoda trži�ču Skupnosti namreč naj ne bi nastajala samo z dejansko sprostitvijo blaga, ki se prodaja pod stro�kovno ceno, na carinsko območje Skupnosti, temveč tudi, kadar se da prednost gospodarskemu subjektu Skupnosti, ki blago prejme po nižji ceni, kot je cena, ki jo plačajo drugi gospodarski subjekti Skupnosti.
That argument presupposes that the objective which Decision No 67/94 seeks to attain could be circumvented in the case of successive sales even if, as in the main proceedings, the price for the last sale, at which point the goods were placed in free circulation, is higher than the minimum import price.
Ta utemeljitev predvideva, da je mogoče cilj, ki ga zasleduje Odločba �t. 67/94, obiti z zaporednimi prodajami, čeprav je cena zadnje prodaje, v fazi katere je bilo blago spro�čeno v prosti promet, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, vi�ja od najnižje uvozne cene.
In this regard, the mere fact that one Community trader could be given an advantage over other Community traders by acquiring goods at a price below that paid by the latter does not endanger the objective of Decision No 67/94.
Glede tega je treba pripomniti, da dejstvo, da se gospodarskemu subjektu Skupnosti lahko da prednost glede na ostale gospodarske subjekte Skupnosti s tem, da blago prejme po ceni, ki je nižja od cene, ki so jo plačali ti, ne posega v cilj Odločbe �t. 67/94.