#2344371
Chuir an táirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin comhoibríoch, LG Chem Ltd. (‘LG Chem’), maíomh cosúil ar aghaidh.
Similar claims were advanced by the cooperating exporting producer, LG Chem Ltd. (‘LG Chem’).
Filter results
Collections
215 results in 4 documents
#1376808
1971 RA
1971 LG
#2344380
Chomh maith leis sin, mhaígh LG Chem gur ríomhadh an praghas onnmhairiúcháin a soláthraíodh sa Ghearán go mícheart.
LG Chem further claimed that the export price provided in the Complaint was incorrectly computed.
#2344387
Dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún do na maímh ó LG Chem dá bhrí sin.
The Commission therefore rejected the claims by LG Chem.
#2344413
D’áitigh LG Chem gurbh fhéidir go ndéanfadh an fhoclaíocht tagairt d’allmhairí ón tSeapáin nó ón tSín ar an mbonn céanna.
LG Chem argued that the wording could have equally referred to imports from Japan or China.
#2344531
Níor líomhain LG Chem, áfach, nárbh fhéidir ach le LG Chem amháin táirgí sonraíochta nó comhfhorbartha a tháirgeadh agus nach mbeadh aon iomaíocht idir soláthróirí éagsúla.
LG Chem, however, did not allege that spec-in or co-developed products could only be produced by LG Chem and that there would be no competition between different suppliers.
#2344551
D’athdhearbhaigh LG Chem na barúlacha sin tar éis an nochta dheiridh.
LG Chem reiterated these comments following the final disclosure.
#2344588
Dheonaigh an Coimisiún síneadh ar an sprioc-am do LG Chem chun barúlacha ar na barúlacha sin a chur isteach.
The Commission granted LG Chem an extension of deadline to submit comments on those comments.
#2344644
D’onnmhairigh LG Chem chuig an Aontas go díreach chuig custaiméirí neamhspleácha nó go hindíreach trí LG Chem Europe, onnmhaireoir gaolmhar lonnaithe san Aontas.
LG Chem exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or indirectly through LG Chem Europe, a related importer in the Union.
#2344660
Tháinig an Coimisiún ar an gconclúid nach raibh corrlach brabúis LG Chem Europe réasúnta, dá bhrí sin.
The Commission therefore concluded that the profit margin of LG Chem Europe was not reasonable.
#2344665
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, d’athdhearbhaigh an chuideachta a héileamh agus chuir sí isteach ríomh a bhí dírithe ar a léiriú go raibh an costas ar cheannacháin LG Chem na hEorpa ó LG Chem níos airde ná an praghas díolacháin PCNanna comhionanna a dhíol go díreach ag LG Chem le custaiméirí nach mbaineann leo san Aontas.
After final disclosure the company reiterated its claim and submitted a calculation aimed to demonstrate that the cost of LG Chem Europe’s purchases from LG Chem was higher than the sales price of identical PCNs sold directly by LG Chem to unrelated customers in the Union.
#2344667
Agus é á ríomh, chuir LG Chem praghas an LG Chem Europe (tar éis lamháltais, SGA agus brabús a asbhaint mar a bunaíodh san imscrúdú PVA) i gcomparáid le díolacháin dhíreacha LG Chem san AE (tar éis liúntais a asbhaint) agus, dá bhrí sin, níor chuir sé aon fhianaise ar fáil a bhí ag teacht salach ar an argóint go ndearna an comhlachas idir an dá chuideachta, mar a bunaíodh le linn an imscrúdaithe, tionchar iomlán ar an leithdháileadh brabúis.
In its calculation, LG Chem compared the price of the LG Chem Europe (after deducting allowances, SGA and profit as established in the PVA investigation) with direct sales of LG Chem in the EU (after deducting allowances) and therefore did not provide any evidence contradicting the argument that the profit allocation was fully affected by the association between the two companies, as established during the investigation.
#2344671
Chuir an LG Chem in aghaidh úsáid a bhaint as an gcorrlach brabúis a bunaíodh san imscrúdú PVA.
LG Chem also contested the use of the profit margin established in the PVA investigation.
#2344677
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, laistigh den spriocdháta a shonraítear in Airteagal 8(2) den bhun-Rialachán, thíolaic LG Chem, in éineacht le LG Chem Europe, tairiscint le haghaidh gnóthais praghais.
Following final disclosure, within the deadline specified in Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation, LG Chem, together with LG Chem Europe, submitted an offer for a price undertaking.
#2344680
D’iarr siad go ndiúltófaí do thairiscint LG Chem.
They requested that LG Chem’s offer be rejected.
#2344712
Ar deireadh, aithníonn an Coimisiún an tairiscint ó LG Chem faisnéis a sholáthar maidir le díolacháin a dhéantar do chustaiméirí domhanda.
Finally, the Commission acknowledges LG Chem’s offer to provide information on sales made to global customers.
#2344730
Mhaígh LG Chem leibhéal coigeartaithe trádála ar dhíolacháin intíre.
LG Chem claimed a level of trade adjustment on domestic sales.
#2344807
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, thug LG Chem le fios go raibh praghsanna i sonraí Eurostat ar bhonn CAL.
Following final disclosure, LG Chem pointed out that Eurostat data contained prices on CIF basis.
#2344825
D’aithin an Coimisiún na barúlacha ó LG Chem.
The Commission acknowledged LG Chem’s comments.
#2344826
Dá bhrí sin, tugadh a shonraí rúnda féin do LG Chem, agus caolaíodh raonta.
Therefore, LG Chem was provided with its own confidential data, and ranges were narrowed.
#2344828
Mhaígh LG Chem freisin gur cheart faisnéis ar leibhéal PCN-sonrach a nochtadh.
LG Chem also claimed that information at PCN-specific level should be disclosed.
#2344844
D’áitigh LG Chem freisin gur bhain an Coimisiún úsáid as PCN chun praghsanna allmhairí ag LG Chem a chur i gcomparáid le praghsanna tháirgeoirí samplaithe an Aontais a bhí róshimplí agus nár chuir san áireamh na saintréithe go léir a luadh i gcur isteach an LG Chem an 28 Aibreán 2021, i.e. amhábhar, cruth, CRC, rialú bolaithe, cúr, frithstoladh, frithdhathú agus úsáid.
LG Chem further argued that the Commission used a PCN for comparing prices of imports by LG Chem to prices of the sampled Union producers which was too simple and did not take into account all characteristics mentioned in LG Chem’s submission of 28 April 2021, i.e. raw material, shape, CRC, odour control, foamed, anti-caking, anti-discoloration and use.
#2344881
Líomhnaíodh gur sháraigh an léirmhíniú seo ar éileamh an LG Chem ceart an LG Chem chun dea-riaracháin.
This interpretation of LG Chem’s claim was alleged to have violated LG Chem’s right to sound administration.
#2344975
Bhí corrlach dumpála LG Chem i bhfad os cionn an leibhéil de minimis.
LG Chem’s dumping margin was significantly above the de minimis level.
#2344993
Ní sháraíonn na raonta a léirítear i dTábla 7 cearta cosanta an LG Chem.
The ranges shown in Table 7 do not violate LG Chem’s rights of defence.
#2344997
Ní bheadh raon eile, dá bhrí sin, feabhas a chur ar chumas LG Chem trácht a dhéanamh.
A different range would therefore not have improved LG Chem’s ability to comment.
#2345110
San éileamh seo meascann an LG Chem dhá éileamh freisin a rinneadh ar leithligh.
In this claim LG Chem mixes two claims also made separately.
#2345150
Tar éis an nochtadh deiridh, d’áitigh LG Chem nach raibh aon dúlagar praghais ná sochtadh ann.
Following the final disclosure, LG Chem argued that there was no price depression or suppression.
#2345220
Mhaígh LG Chem freisin go raibh díobháil ba chúis den chuid is mó ag allmhairí Seapáinis.
LG Chem also claimed that injury was mainly caused by Japanese imports.
#2345535
Murab ionann agus líomhain LG Chem, rinne an Coimisiún anailís ar gach ceann de na tosca agus thug sé freagra ar argóintí Chem an LG.
Contrary to LG Chem’s allegation, the Commission analysed each of the factors and responded to LG Chem’s arguments.
#2345540
Ní léiríonn argóint an LG Chem ach comparáid aonair idir na blianta 2019 agus 2020.
LG Chem’s argument only points to an isolated comparison of the years 2019 and 2020.
#2345554
LG Chem, Ltd.
LG Chem, Ltd.
#2345556
LG Chem Ltd.
LG Chem Ltd.
#2345557
LG Chem.
LG Chem.
#2344488
Tar éis an 2ú doiciméad nochta breise (‘22nd ADD’) D’áitigh LG Chem gur sárú ar chearta cosanta LG Chem é gan ach lá amháin a thabhairt chun tuairimí a nochtadh maidir le hathruithe substaintiúla ar fhionnachtana an Choimisiúin, go háirithe ós rud é nár nochtadh foinse na hearráide.
Following the 2nd additional disclosure document (‘2nd ADD’) LG Chem argued that the granting of only one day to comment on substantial changes to the Commission’s findings, constitutes a breach of LG Chem’s rights of defence, especially since the source of the error had not been disclosed.
#2344491
Ina theannta sin, d’áitigh LG Chem go raibh cosc ar LG Chem tuiscint réasúnta a fháil ar na táscairí maicreacnamaíocha athbhreithnithe nuair a cuireadh leis na sonraí a bhaineann le cuideachta aonair sa 2ú ADD.
Furthermore, LG Chem argued that the use of ranges, triggered by the addition of data pertaining to a single company in the 2nd ADD, prevented LG Chem from obtaining a reasonable understanding of the revised macro-economic indicators.
#2344498
Ina theannta sin, dúirtLG Chem leis an 2ú gur dearbhaíodh iarbhír sna figiúirí athbhreithnithe ar scaireanna margaidh éileamh roimhe seo LG Chem nár ghabh allmhairí ón gCóiré scaireanna margaidh ó thionscal an Aontais riamh.
In addition,LG Chem stated in it comments to the 2nd ADD that the revised figures on market shares actually confirmed LG Chem’s previous claim that imports from Korea never captured market shares from the Union industry.
#2344574
Ar na forais sin, bhí BASF agus Nippon Shokubai Europe in aghaidh an miondealú PCN arna mholadh ag LG Chem agus d'áitigh siad nach gcuirfeadh PCN aonair amháin cosc ar LG Chem coigeartú a éileamh faoi Airteagal 2(10) den bhun-Rialachán.
On those grounds, BASF and Nippon Shokubai Europe opposed the PCN breakdown proposed by LG Chem and submitted that one single PCN would not prevent LG Chem to claim an adjustment under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
#2344575
Mar achoimre, bhí na táirgeoirí de chuid an Aontais in aghaidh iarraidh LG Chem le haghaidh eisiamh táirgí mar a dtugtar tuairisc air i ranna 2.3.1 agus mhaígh nár léirigh LG Chem difríochtaí substainteacha idir táirgí SAP dá iarradh an t-eisiamh i dtéarmaí saintréithe teicniúla agus fisiceacha, úsáidí, tuiscint na gcustaiméirí nó idirmhalartacht, agus táirgí eile SAP.
To summarize, the Union producers opposed LG Chem’s request for product exclusion as described in sections 2.3.1 and claimed that LG Chem had failed to demonstrate substantive differences between SAP products for which the exclusion was requested in terms of technical and physical characteristics, uses, customers’ perception or interchangeability, and other SAP products.
#2344668
Ina theannta sin, bhí praghsanna an LG Chem Europe móide SG&A agus brabús bunaithe san imscrúdú ar an PVA [5 % – 8 %] níos airde ar an meán ná na praghsanna iaroibre de dhíolacháin dhíreacha an LG Chem.
In addition, the ex-works prices of LG Chem Europe plus SG&A and profit established in the PVA investigation were on average [5% - 8%] higher than the ex-work prices of the direct sales of LG Chem.
#2344731
Mhaígh an chuideachta nach amháin go ndéanann a allmhaireoir gaolmhar, LG Chem Europe, na feidhmeanna díolacháin le haghaidh díolachán onnmhairiúcháin leis an Aontas, ach go ndéanann an fhoireann díolacháin i gceanncheathrú LG Chem i bPoblacht na Cóiré iad freisin.
The company argued that the sales functions for export sales to the Union are carried out not only by its related importer LG Chem Europe, but also by the sales team in LG Chem’s headquarters in the Republic of Korea.
#2344836
Go mion, chinn LG Chem nach bhféadfaí luach onnmhairithe teorann an AE a nochtadh in Iarscríbhinn 3b a réiteach go díreach, chomh maith leis na ríomhanna mionsonraithe foghearrthacha agus díobhála a nochtar do LG Chem, agus na figiúirí a tuairiscíodh i liostaí díolacháin LGC i dtáblaí EUSALUR agus RLSALUR.
In detail, LG Chem found that it could not exactly reconcile the CIF EU border export value disclosed in Annex 3b, as well as the detailed undercutting and injury calculations disclosed to LG Chem, with the figures reported in LGC’s sales listings in tables EUSALUR and RLSALUR.
#2344849
Ar deireadh, d’áitigh LG Chem gur earráid fhollasach measúnaithe é an praghas iarbhír a ghearrann LG Chem Europe a choigeartú de réir méid teoiriciúil SGA agus brabúis chun críocha fómhair agus nach bhfuil sé i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 3(2) agus le hAirteagal 3(3) den bhun-Rialachán, ós rud é nach mór praghsanna a chur i gcomparáid leis an leibhéal trádála ar an leibhéal céanna tar éis bhreithiúnas Jindal.
LG Chem finally argued that adjusting the actual price charged by LG Chem Europe by a theoretical amount of SGA and profit for undercutting purposes constitutes a manifest error of assessment and is inconsistent with Articles 3(2) and 3(3) of the basic Regulation, since for an undercutting comparison, prices must be compared at the same level of trade following the Jindal judgement.
#2344992
Tar éis an Nochtadh Deiridh Chem, d’áitigh sé gur sháraigh an anailís ar allmhairí ón gCóiré cearta cosanta LG Chem, ós rud é go raibh na raonta dá bhforáiltear i dTábla 7, a léiríonn praghsanna idir EUR 1000 agus EUR 1300/tonna le linn na tréimhse imscrúdaithe ('IP'), i.e. 2020, iomarcach agus d’fhéadfadh allmhairí ón gCóiré a bheith os cionn, ar leibhéal inchomparáide nó faoi bhun phraghsanna tháirgeoirí samplaithe an Aontais.
Following the Final Disclosure LG Chem argued that the analysis of imports from Korea breached LG Chem’s rights of defence, since the ranges provided in Table 7, showing prices between 1000 and 1300 EUR/tonne during the investigation period (‘IP’), i.e. 2020, were excessive and imports from Korea could equally be above, at comparable level or below the prices of sampled Union producers.
#2345164
D’áitigh LG Chem gurb iad praghsanna C3 agus NaOH, ar tháinig laghdú 18 % orthu sa tréimhse chéanna, ba chúis le formhór an laghdaithe ar phraghsanna tionscail an Aontais idir 2017 agus 2020, ach níor laghdaigh ach 12 % an eilimint sheasta praghsanna, de réir ríomhanna an LG Chem, sa tréimhse chéanna.
LG Chem argued that the majority of the price decrease of Union industry prices between 2017 and 2020 was caused by the C3 and NaOH prices, which decreased by 18% in the same period, whereas the fixed price element, according to LG Chem’s calculations, only decreased by 12% in the same period.
#2344378
Mhaígh LG Chem gur bhoilscigh an gearánach go saorga an corrlach dumpála agus an corrlach sladghearrtha a cuireadh i láthair sa ghearán agus SAP á mheas mar tháirge aonfhoirmeach.
LG Chem claimed that the complainant, by considering SAP a homogeneous product, artificially inflated the dumping and undercutting margins presented in the complaint.
#2344379
Maidir leis sin, d’athdhearbhaigh LG Chem na barúlacha a soláthraíodh cheana ar raon feidhme an táirge ar a ndírítear i Roinn 2.3 den chuid ba mhó.
In this regard, LG Chem mostly reiterated the comments already provided on the product scope addressed in Section 2.3.
#2344384
Ní fhágtar an chomparáid arna déanamh ag na gearánaigh lochtach chun críche an tionscnaimh toisc go measann LG Chem nach táirge aonfhoirmeach é an táirge faoi imscrúdú.
The fact that LG Chem considers the product under investigation not to be homogeneous did not render the comparison as made by the complainants faulty for the purpose of the initiation.
#2344395
Thairis sin, tá dá tháirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin eile i bPoblacht na Cóiré a dhíolann go díreach ar mhargadh an Aontais agus díolann LG Chem féin cuid dá dhíolacháin onnmhairiúcháin go díreach freisin.
Moreover, there are two other exporting producers in the Republic of Korea, selling directly in the Union market and LG Chem itself sells also directly part of its export sales.
#2344396
Ar aon chuma, níor léirigh LG Chem an bealach a mbeadh laghdú suntasach ar an sladghearradh a luadh sa ghearán [10-30 %] dá n-úsáidfí praghas onnmhairiúcháin difriúil.
In any event, LG Chem failed to show how taking a different export price would result in a significant reduction of the undercutting mentioned in the complaint [10-30%].