natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That objective is not to take away the profits which importers may make but, as can be seen from recital (64) in the preamble to that decision, to avoid material injury to the Community industry, namely, the producers.
Njen cilj namreč ni odvzeti morebitnih koristi uvoznikom, temveč kot izhaja iz �tiriin�estdesete uvodne izjave navedene odločbe, izogniti se nastanku precej�nje �kode industriji Skupnosti, torej proizvajalcem.
Thirdly and finally, the Italian Government, supported by the Commission, argues that the variable antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 may be easily circumvented, in particular, by a transversal offsetting of prices applied to other products or through the declaration of artificially inflated prices.
Tretjič in nazadnje italijanska vlada zatrjuje, čemur se pridružuje tudi Komisija, da je mogoče spremenljivo protidampin�ko dajatev, uvedeno v Odločbo �t. 67/94, zlahka obiti, zlasti s tranverzalno nadomestitvijo cene, uporabljeno za druge proizvode, ali s prijavo umetno povi�ane cene.
In that regard, under Article 13(2) of the basic decision, measures imposing an antidumping duty are required to indicate in particular the amount and type of duty imposed, together with certain other matters.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da na podlagi člena 13(2) osnovne odločbe ukrepi, ki uvajajo protidampin�ko dajatev, navajajo zlasti znesek in vrsto uvedene dajatev ter določene druge podatke.
Accordingly, the institutions are free to choose, within the limits of their margin of discretion, between the different types of duty (see Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945, paragraph 58).
Iz te določbe izhaja, da lahko institucije v mejah svoje diskrecijske pravice prosto izbirajo med različnimi vrstami dajatev (glej sodbo z dne 11. julija 1990 v združenih zadevah Neotype Techmashexport proti Komisiji in Svetu, C-305/86 in C-160/87, Recueil, str. I-2945, točka 58).
41), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 643/94 of 21 March 1994 (OJ 1994 L 80, p.
41, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 643/94 z dne 21. marca 1994, UL L 80, str.
1), Case T-87/98 International Potash Company v Council [2000] ECR II-3179, paragraphs 43 to 48).
1, glej sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 29. septembra 2000 v zadevi International Potash Company proti Svetu, T-87/98, Recueil, str. II-3179, točke od 43 do 48).
However, as recital (66) in the preamble to Decision No 67/94 states, the Commission considered, in the exercise of its discretion, ‘the introduction of a minimum price more appropriate in this particular case than any other type of measure in order to achieve’ the objectives of that decision.
Kot je navedeno v �estin�estdeseti uvodni izjavi Odločbe �t. 67/94, se je Komisija s tem, da je odločala na podlagi diskrecijske pravice, odločila, da je v primeru, na katerega se nana�a ta odločba, „uvedba najnižje uvozne cene“ za dosego ciljev te odločbe „primernej�a od katerega koli drugega ukrepa“.
Since a variable duty may be easily circumvented and such circumvention can be avoided by imposing a specific duty or a combination of a variable and a specific duty, the fact that the Commission decided none the less to impose a variable duty in Decision No 67/94 cannot, of itself, justify a general abandonment, to the detriment of importers, of determination of the antidumping duty on the basis of the declared customs value, as provided for in that decision.
Ker se lahko spremenljivo dajatev zlahka obide in ker se je taki praksi mogoče izogniti z uvedbo posebne dajatve ali kombinacije spremenljive in posebne dajatve, okoli�čina,
2008 — CASE C-263/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-263/06 da se je Komisija na podlagi Odločbe �t.
In those circumstances, it must be held that, in accordance with Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94, the customs authorities may not determine the customs value for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by that decision on the basis of the price indicated for the goods concerned in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made in the case where the declared price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer.
V teh okoli�činah je treba zaključiti, da v skladu s členom 1(2) Odločbe �t. 67/94 carinski organi carinske vrednosti za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene s to odločbo, ne morejo določiti na podlagi prodajne cene zadevnega blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, če prijavljena cena ustreza ceni, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati.
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 they question the accuracy of the price indicated in the customs declaration
Možnost carinskih organov, da se za uporabo protidampinške dajatve, uvedene z Odločbo št. 67/94, sklicujejo na predhodno prodajo, kadar izpodbijajo verodostojnost cene, navedene v carinski deklaraciji.
In order to determine whether the customs authorities may, for the purpose of applying an antidumping duty pursuant to Decision No 67/94, refer to the price indicated in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made in the case where they question the accuracy of the price indicated in the declaration, the relevant provisions of the implementing regulation and Articles 29 to 31 of the Community Customs Code must be considered, regard being had to the specific characteristics of a variable antidumping duty.
Za določitev, ali se carinski organi za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve na podlagi Odločbe �t. 67/94 lahko sklicujejo na prodajno ceno blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, kadar izpodbijajo verodostojnost cene, navedene v njej, je treba preskusiti upo�tevne določbe izvedbene uredbe in člene od 29 do 31 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti ter pri tem upo�tevati posebnosti spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve.
It should be noted in this connection that, according to Article 1(3) of Decision No 67/94, the provisions in force concerning customs duties are to apply.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da se v skladu s členom 1(3) Odločbe �t. 67/94 uporabijo veljavne določbe o carinskih dajatvah.
In this context, Article 181a of the implementing regulation, introduced by Regulation No 3254/94, provides that the customs authorities need not necessarily determine the customs valuation of imported goods on the basis of the transaction value method if they are not satisfied, on the basis of reasonable doubts, that the declared value represents the total amount paid or payable, and they may refuse to accept the declared price if those doubts continue after they have asked for additional information or documents and have provided the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the grounds for those doubts.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je v členu 181a izvedbene uredbe, ki je bil uveden z Uredbo �t. 3254/94, določeno, da carinskim organom, kadar utemeljeno dvomijo, da je prijavljena vrednost ves znesek, ki je plačan ali se plača, ni treba določati carinske vrednosti na osnovi metode transakcijske vrednosti in lahko zavrnejo prijavljeno ceno, če se ti dvomi nadaljujejo po morebitni zahtevi za predložitev vseh dodatnih informacij ali dokumentov in potem ko je bilo zadevni osebi primerno omogočeno, da se opredeli glede razlogov za te dvome.
Although that provision of the implementing regulation was not yet in force when the goods at issue in the main proceedings were declared, it codifies, according to the information supplied by Commission, a customs practice common at both international and Community level, as applied at the time at which the facts in the main proceedings took place.
Čeprav ta določba izvedbene uredbe ob prijavi blaga iz postopka v glavni stvari �e ni veljala, pa glede na informacije, ki jih je predložila Komisija, določa ustaljeno carinsko prakso na mednarodni ravni in ravni Skupnosti, kot se je izvajala v času nastanka dejstev.
In addition, Article 29(2)(a) of the Community Customs Code lays down the same procedural requirements when the customs authorities have grounds for taking the view that the relationship between the buyer and the seller influenced the price.
Še več, v členu 29(2)(a) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti so določene enake postopkovne zahteve za primere, v katerih imajo carinski organi razlog za mnenje, da je povezanost med kupcem in prodajalcem vplivala na ceno.
The conclusion must therefore be drawn that those procedural requirements are inherent in the valuation system.
Tako je treba zaključiti, da so postopkovne zahteve značilne za sistem vrednotenja.
On the basis of Article 181a of the implementing regulation and the abovementioned customs practice, the Commission takes the view that the Italian customs authorities were entitled to use the price indicated in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs value was declared.
Ob sklicevanju na člen 181a izvedbene uredbe in na zgoraj navedeno carinsko prakso Komisija meni, da so italijanski carinski organi smeli upo�tevati prodajno ceno blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija.
Article 181a of the implementing regulation merely states that the customs authorities ‘need not determine the customs valuation … on the basis of the transaction value method’ but does not specify what other value is to be substituted for the transaction value in such a case.
Treba je spomniti, da je v členu 181a izvedbene uredbe določeno le, da carinskim organom „ni treba določati carinske vrednosti […] na osnovi metode transakcijske vrednosti“, ne določa pa, s katero vrednostjo je treba v takem primeru nadomestiti transakcijsko vrednost.
Pursuant to Articles 30 and 31 of the Community Customs Code, which apply to the antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 by virtue of Article 1(3) of that decision, where the customs value of the imported goods cannot be determined under Article 29 of the Code, it is to be determined by application, first, of Article 30 and, second, of Article 31.
V skladu s členoma 30 in 31 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, ki se uporabljata za protidampin�ko dajatev, uvedeno s členom 1(3) Odločbe �t. 67/94, je treba carinsko vrednost uvoženega blaga, če je ni mogoče določiti z uporabo člena 29 tega zakonika, najprej določiti z uporabo člena 30 in nato z uporabo navedenega člena 31.
The question thus arises whether, where it is impossible, during the examination referred to in paragraph 52 of this judgment, to determine the real transaction value, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable in the transaction in respect of which the customs declaration has been made, the customs authorities may, in accordance with Articles 30 and 31 of the Community Customs Code, refer to the price indicated for a prior sale.
Tako se zastavlja vpra�anje, ali se lahko carinski organi, če med preiskavo iz člena 52 te sodbe ni mogoče določiti resnične transakcijske vrednosti, torej cene, ki je bila dejansko plačana ali jo je treba plačati za transakcijo, za katero je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, v skladu s členom 30 in 31 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti sklicujejo na ceno predhodne prodaje.
It should be pointed out, on the one hand, with regard to Article 30 of the Community Customs Code, that that article seeks essentially to establish the customs value on the basis of the price usually charged for the goods in question.
Glede člena 30 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti je treba spomniti, da je namen tega člena v bistvu določiti carinsko vrednost na podlagi cene, ki je običajna za zadevno blago.
However, the specific characteristic of dumping cases lies in the introduction of goods onto the Community market at a price below that charged on that market.
Posebnost primerov dampinga pa je v tem, da se blago na trži�če Skupnosti vnese po ceni, ki je nižja od običajne cene na trži�ču.
In addition, the particular characteristic of a variable antidumping duty lies in the fact that it is calculated on the basis of the difference between the minimum import price and the price actually agreed for the goods in question.
Poleg tega je posebnost spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve v tem, da se ta dajatev izračuna na podlagi razlike med najnižjo uvozno ceno in ceno, ki je konkretno dogovorjena za zadevno blago.
Consequently, the customs value determined in accordance with Article 30 by reference to the price generally paid or payable cannot be used for the purpose of applying a variable antidumping duty.
Zato carinske vrednosti, določene v skladu z navedenim členom 30 glede na ceno, ki se na splo�no plača ali jo je treba plačati, ni mogoče upo�tevati za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve.
On the other hand, Article 31(1) of the Community Customs Code provides that, under the conditions which it sets out, the customs value is to be determined on the basis of data available in the Community, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the international agreements and the provisions which it sets out.
Na drugi strani je v členu 31(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti določeno, da se v okoli�činah, ki jih podrobneje opredeljuje, carinska vrednost določi na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov v Skupnosti z ustreznimi metodami, ki so v skladu z načeli ter s splo�nimi določbami mednarodnih sporazumov in določb, ki jih na�teva.
In accordance with Point 2 of the Interpretative Notes on Customs Value in Annex 23 to the implementing regulation, concerning Article 31(1) of the Community Customs Code, the methods of valuation to be used under Article 31(1) should be those laid down in Articles 29 and 30(2) of the Code but a ‘reasonable flexibility’ in the application of those methods would be in conformity with the objectives and provisions of Article 31(1) of the Code.
I-4301, točka 13). V skladu s točko 2 pojasnjevalnih opomb na področju carinske vrednosti iz Priloge 23 k izvedbeni uredbi glede člena 31(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti bi morale biti metode vrednotenja, ki se uporabljajo na podlagi člena 31(1), tiste, ki so določene v členih 29 in 30(2), vendar bi bila „azumna prožnost“ pri uporabi teh metod v skladu s cilji in z določbami člena 31(2) tega zakonika.
Having regard to the need to establish a customs value for the purpose of applying a variable antidumping duty and to the ‘reasonable flexibility’ mentioned in Point 2 of the Interpretative Notes, it must be accepted that the price indicated in a sale which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made may constitute data available in the Community which Article 31(1) of the Community Customs Code allows to be used as a basis for determining customs value.
Ob upo�tevanju potrebe po določitvi carinske vrednost za uporabo spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve in „azumne prožnosti“, navedene v točki 2 navedenih pojasnjevalnih opomb, je treba priznati, da prodajna cena blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, lahko pomeni razpoložljiv podatek v Skupnosti, glede katerega člen 31(1) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti
2008 — CASE C-263/06 of determining a customs value which is both ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of Article 31(1) and consistent with the principles and general provisions of the international agreements and the provisions referred to in Article 31(1).
Ob upo�tevanju posebnosti spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve, ki je navedena v točki 58 te sodbe, pomeni namreč sklicevanje na to ceno sredstvo določanja navedene vrednosti, ki je hkrati „razumna“ v smislu člena 31(1) ter v skladu z načeli, s splo�nimi določbami mednarodnih sporazumov in določbami, na katere se sklicuje člen 31(1).
However, under Article 31(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, the customs value determined under Article 31(1) may not be based on a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values.
Vendar ob uporabi člena 31(2)(b) Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti carinska vrednost, ki se določi v skladu z odstavkom 1 tega člena, ne more temeljiti na sistemu, po katerem se za carinske namene upo�teva vi�ja od dveh mogočih vrednosti.
Adapted to a context concerning a variable antidumping duty, that provision excludes a system which provides for the acceptance of the lower value.
Prilago -jeno okoli�činam, v katerih gre za spremenljivo protidampin�ko dajatev, ta določba izključuje sistem, ki predvideva upo�tevanje nižje vrednosti.
Moreover, Article 31(2)(g) of the Code excludes the determination of customs value on the basis of arbitrary or fictitious values.
Poleg tega je s členom 31(2)(g) navedenega zakonika izključeno, da bi navedena carinska vrednost temeljila na poljubnih ali fiktivnih vrednostih.
Consequently, it is appropriate to point out that the relevant customs value for the purpose of determining a variable antidumping duty corresponds to the price agreed in the most recent sale prior to that for which the customs declaration was made and in regard to which the customs authorities have no objective reason to doubt its accuracy.
Zato je treba pojasniti, da carinska vrednost, ki je upo�tevna za določitev spremenljive protidampin�ke dajatve, ustreza ceni, ki je bila dogovorjena za zadnjo prodajo pred prodajo, za katero je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, in glede katere carinski organi ne bi imeli objektivnega razloga za dvom v njeno verodostojnost.
In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred to the Court must be that, in accordance with Article 1(2) of Decision No 67/94, the customs authorities may not determine the customs value for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by that decision on the basis of the price indicated for the goods concerned in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made when the declared price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da v skladu s členom 1(2) Odločbe �t. 67/94 carinski organi carinske vrednosti za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene s to odločbo, ne morejo določiti na podlagi prodajne cene zadevnega blaga, ki je bila določena pred ceno, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, če prijavljena cena ustreza ceni, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati.
If the customs authorities have reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of the declared value and their doubts are confirmed after they have asked for additional information or documents and have provided the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the grounds for those doubts, without it being possible to determine the price actually paid or payable, they may, in accordance
Kadar carinski organi utemeljeno dvomijo v resničnost prijavljene vrednosti in so njihovi dvomi potrjeni po morebitni zahtevi za predložitev vseh dodatnih informacij ali dokumentov ter potem ko je bilo zadevni osebi primerno omogočeno, da se opredeli glede razlogov za te dvome, ne da bi bilo dovoljeno določiti ceno, ki je bila dejansko plačana ali jo je treba plačati, lahko v skladu
CARBONI E DERIVATI with Article 31 of the Community Customs Code, calculate the customs value for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 by reference to the price agreed for the goods in question in the most recent sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made and in regard to which the customs authorities have no objective reason to doubt its accuracy.
CARBONI E DERIVATI s členom 31 Carinskega zakonika Skupnosti carinsko vrednost za uporabo protidampin�ke dajatve, uvedene z Odločbi �t. 67/94, izračunajo na podlagi cene, ki je bila za zadevno blago dogovorjena za zadnjo prodajo pred prodajo, za katero je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, in glede katere ne bi imeli objektivnega razloga za dvom v njeno resničnost.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the actions pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
In accordance with Article 1(2) 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, the customs authorities may not determine the customs value for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by that decision on the basis of the price indicated for the goods concerned in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made when the declared price corres- ponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer.
V skladu s členom 1(2) Odločbe Komisije št. 67/94/ESPJ z dne 12. januarja 1994 o uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz surovega železa, pridobljenega iz hematita, s poreklom iz Brazilije, Poljske, Rusije in Ukrajine v Skupnost carinski organi carinske vrednosti za uporabo protidampinške dajatve, uvedene s to odločbo, ne morejo določiti na podlagi cene ki je bila za zadevno blago določena za prodajo pred prodajo, na podlagi katere je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, če prijavljena cena ustreza ceni, ki jo je uvoznik dejansko plačal ali jo mora plačati.
If the customs authorities have reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of the declared value and their doubts are confirmed after they have asked for additional information or documents and have provided the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the grounds for those doubts, without it being possible to determine the price actually paid or payable, they may, in accordance with Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, calculate the customs value for the purpose of applying the antidumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 by reference to the price agreed for the goods in question in the most recent sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made and in regard to which the customs authorities have no objective reason to doubt its accuracy.
Kadar carinski organi utemeljeno dvomijo v resničnost prijavljene vrednosti in so njihovi dvomi potrjeni po zahtevi za predložitev vseh dodatnih informacij ali dokumentov ter potem ko je bilo zadevni osebi primerno omogočeno, da se opredeli glede razlogov za te dvome, ne da bi bilo dovoljeno določiti ceno, ki je bila dejansko plačana ali jo je treba plačati, lahko v skladu s členom 31 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti carinsko vrednost za uporabo protidampinške dajatve, uvedene z Odločbo št. 67/94, izračunajo na podlagi cene, ki je bila za zadevno blago dogovorjena za zadnjo prodajo pred prodajo, za katero je bila predložena carinska deklaracija, in glede katere ne bi imeli objektivnega razloga za dvom v njeno resničnost.
Case C-293/06
Zadeva C-293/06
(Freedom of establishment — Taxation of companies — Monetary effects upon the repatriation of startup capital granted by a company established in one Member State to its permanent establishment in another Member State)
„Svoboda ustanavljanja – Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb – Finančni učinki pri vračanju dotacijskega kapitala, ki ga je družba s sedežem v eni državi članici odobrila svoji stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 8 November 2007 . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1131
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 28 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 28. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1147
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Taxation of companies — Deduction of losses
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb – Odbitek izgub