Maidir leis na infheistíochtaí a dearbhaíodh sa ghearán, d’áitigh LG Chem nach bhfuil aon bhunús leis an bhfáth ar chaith na gearánaigh le sonraí den sórt sin go rúnda.
With regards to the investments declared in the complaint, LG Chem argued that there is no rationale as to why such data was treated as confidential by the complainants.
I gcodarsnacht leis an méid a líomhnaíonn LG Chem, sholáthair an gearánach fianaise leordhóthanach ar nasc cúisíoch idir allmhairí ón tír lena mbaineann agus díobháil.
Contrary to what LG Chem alleges, the complainant provided sufficient evidence of a causal link between imports from the country concerned and injury.
Tharla éisteachtaí le LG Chem, leis an gComhghuaillíocht le haghaidh Margadh Oscailte Iomaíoch AE SAP, agus le Evonik.
Hearings took place with LG Chem, with the Coalition for an Open and Competitive EU SAP Market, and with Evonik.
Thug an Coimisiún dá aire nár iarr LG Chem aon síneadh go dtí an spriocdháta chun tuairimí a thabhairt maidir leis an 2ú ADD.
The Commission noted that LG Chem did not request any extension to the deadline for the provision of comments on the 2nd ADD.
Dá bhrí sin, ní féidir a mheas nach raibh coinne leis na sonraí leasaithe cheana féin i gcosaint an LG Chem.
Therefore, it cannot be considered that the amended data was not already anticipated in LG Chem’s defence.
I margadh ina bhfuil líon teoranta monaróirí, cuireann sonraí breise monaróra amháin figiúr suntasach leis na dearbhmhéideanna, a raibh súil ag LG Chem ina chéad bharúlacha.
In a market with a limited number of manufacturers, the additional of data of one manufacturer naturally adds a substantial figure to the absolute amounts, which was anticipated by LG Chem in its initial comments.
Murab ionann agus an méid a líomhnaíonn LG Chem nach raibh na treochtaí ag feabhsú, lean siad orthu ag taispeáint an ghort chéanna, fiú má bhí méid an athraithe difriúil.
Contrary to what LG Chem alleges the trends were not improving, they continued to show the same injury, even if the magnitude of change was different.
Léiríonn an t-éileamh seo nach raibh athrú ar mheasúnú ag an LG Chem mar thoradh ar na treochtaí a nochtadh sa 2ú den chuid is mó.
This claim demonstrates that the trends disclosed in the 2nd ADD did generally not lead to a change in assessment by LG Chem either.
Ar deireadh, níor chuir úsáid raonta sna macrashonraí cosc ar LG Chem tuiscint a fháil ar na macratháscairí athbhreithnithe.
Finally, the use of ranges in the macro data did not prevent LG Chem from understanding the revised macro-indicators.
Dá bhrí sin, dhiúltaigh an Coimisiún don argóint gurbh ionann an spriocdháta gearr agus sárú ar chearta cosanta LG Chem.
The Commission therefore rejected the argument that the short deadline constituted a breach of LG Chem’s rights of defence.
Dá bhrí sin, d’iarr LG Chem go bhfágfaí táirgí SAP ‘comhfhorbartha’ amach as raon feidhme an imscrúdaithe.
Therefore, LG Chem requested the exclusion of “co-developed” SAP products from the scope of the investigation.
Níor chruthaigh LG Chem go leordhóthanach go mbeadh margadh ar leithligh ag Bio SAP agus nach mbeadh sé in iomaíocht le SAP arna dhéanamh le hamhola.
LG Chem did not sufficiently substantiate that Bio SAP would have a separate market and would not be in competition with SAP made from crude oil.
An 19 Márta 2021, chuir táirgeoirí sampláilte de chuid an Aontais, BASF agus Nippon Shokubai Europe, barúlacha isteach mar fhreagairt ar aighneacht LG Chem.
On 19 March 2021, the sampled Union producers, BASF and Nippon Shokubai Europe, submitted comments in response to LG Chem’s submission.
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.
Anuas air sin, d’áitigh LG Chem nár cheadaigh sonraí páirtithe eile mar fhreagairt ar PCN mionsonraithe tuiscint réasúnach ar an bhfaisnéis a cuireadh isteach faoi rún.
LG Chem further argued that the data of other parties in response to the detailed PCN did not permit a reasonable understanding of the information submitted in confidence.
Ba é LG Chem an t-aon táirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin comhoibríoch amháin a tháirg an táirge lena mbaineann i bPoblacht na Cóiré.
LG Chem was the only cooperating exporting producer of the product concerned in the Republic of Korea.
Ar an mbonn sin, bhí na díolacháin iomlána a rinne LG Chem maidir leis an táirge comhchosúil ar an margadh intíre ionadaíoch.
On that basis, the total sales of LG Chem of the like product on the domestic market were representative.
Díoladh cineál amháin táirge ag méideanna a léirigh 4.3 % de mhéid foriomlán de dhíolacháin onnmhairiúcháin LG Chem leis an Aontas, beagán níos lú ná an tairseach de 5 %.
One product type was sold at volumes representing 4.3% of the total volume of export sales of LG Chem to the Union, only slightly below the 5% threshold.
Is é a thuairim gur cheart don Choimisiún úsáid a bhaint as an ráta LIBOR a d’úsáid an LG Chem ina fhreagra ceistneoir agus bunaithe ar an airgeadra sonraisc (EUR).
In its view the Commission should have used the LIBOR rate used by LG Chem in its questionnaire reply and based on the invoice currency (EUR).
D’áitigh LG Chem gur cheart go léireodh an liúntas an costas bunaithe ar na téarmaí íocaíochta a comhaontaíodh tráth an díola.
LG Chem argued that the allowance should reflect the cost based on the payment terms agreed at the time of sale.
Maidir leis an gcorrlach brabúis a úsáideadh, mhaígh LG Chem Europe gur cheart a chorrlach brabúis féin a úsáid, toisc go raibh sé cruinn agus réasúnta dar leis.
With respect to the profit margin used, LG Chem Europe claimed that its own profit margin should be used as, in its view, it was accurate and reasonable.
Fuarthas, áfach, go ndearna an ceangal idir an dá chuideachta difear iomlán don mhodh leithdháilte toisc gur leithdháil LG Chem go díreach é.
However, the allocation method was found to be fully affected by the association between the two companies as it was directly allocated by LG Chem.
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.
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.
In aon chás, níorbh fholáir an tairiscint gealltanais a thíolaic an LG Chem a dhiúltú ar fhorais eile agus dá bhrí sin níor ghá measúnú a dhéanamh ina leith sin.
In any event, the undertaking offer presented by LG Chem had to be rejected on other grounds and an assessment was thus not necessary in that regard.
Ar an dara dul síos, d’onnmhairigh LG Chem roinnt cineálacha éagsúla táirgí le linn na tréimhse imscrúdaithe, le héagsúlacht praghais [30 % – 40 %].
Second, LG Chem exported several different product types during the investigation period, with a price variation of [30% - 40%].
Sna barúlacha a thug sé, chuir LG Chem in aghaidh na gcúiseanna a mhol an Coimisiún chun diúltú dá thairiscint gealltanais.
In its comments, LG Chem contested the reasons the Commission put forward to reject its undertaking offer.
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.
D’áitigh an chuideachta: (i) d’aithin an Coimisiún go raibh praghas an táirge lena mbaineann luaineach ach, dar leis, nach raibh sé comhsheasmhach leis an líomhain gur chuir allmhairí na Cóiré deireadh le praghsanna thionscal an Aontais, (ii) d’áitigh an Coimisiún gur onnmhairigh LG Chem 10 chineál táirgí éagsúla a d'fhéadfaí a aithint trí thosca ar nós cruth na gráinníní táirge, an méid póiriúlachta, an dlús toirte agus dáileadh mhéid na gcáithníní, contrártha leis an doiciméad nochta ginearálta inar bhunaigh an Coimisiún ríomh an chorrlaigh fómhair agus díobhála ar PCN simplithe, nach measann ach go n-áirítear rialú an bholaidh agus úsáid an táirge (géinseach i gcoinne tionscail), (iii) sa doiciméad ginearálta maidir le nochtadh, níor mheas an Coimisiún gur tosca ábhartha iad foirmle praghsanna SAP agus costais tháirgeoirí an Aontais is cúis le díobháil do thionscal an Aontais, cé gur mheas sé dó diúltú do thairiscint an ghnóthais, (iv) chuir an Coimisiún san áireamh a ábhartha atá conarthaí leithdháilte fadtéarmacha agus domhanda chun diúltú do ghnóthas LG Chem, ach níor mheas sé é sa doiciméad ginearálta maidir le nochtadh, go háirithe maidir le feidhmíocht onnmhairiúcháin thionscal an Aontais agus éifeachtaí allmhairí ón tSeapáin.
The company argued that: (i) the Commission acknowledged that the price of the product concerned was volatile but, in its view, this was not consistent with the allegation that the Korean imports suppressed the prices of the Union industry, (ii) the Commission argued that LG Chem exported 10 different product types that could be identified by factors such as the shape of the product granules, the degree of porosity, the bulk density and the particle size distribution, contrary to the general disclosure document where the Commission based the undercutting and injury margin calculation on a simplified PCN, which only considers the inclusion of odour control and the use of the product (hygienic against industrial), (iii) in the general disclosure document the Commission did not consider the SAP price formula and the Union producers’ costs as relevant factors causing injury to the Union industry, while it did consider it to reject the undertaking offer, (iv) the Commission took into account the relevance of long-term and global allocation contracts to reject LG Chem’s undertaking offer, but did not consider it in the general disclosure document, especially as regards the export performance of the Union industry and the effects of imports from Japan.
Níor sholáthair LG Chem aon fhianaise go ndeachaigh ríomh an phraghais onnmhairiúcháin de bhun Airteagal 2(9) níos faide ná an méid is gá faoin bhforáil sin.
LG Chem has not provided any evidence that the construction of the export price pursuant to Article 2(9) has gone beyond what is required under that provision.
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.
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, d’áitigh LG Chem nár soláthraíodh a shonraí mionsonraithe féin in Iarscríbhinn 3b don nochtadh deiridh, agus nár leor méid na raonta le haghaidh sonraí rúnda.
Following final disclosure, LG Chem argued that it had not been provided with its own detailed data in Annex 3b to the final disclosure, and that the magnitude of the ranges for confidential data was inadequate.
Áiríodh na hathruithe sin sa nochtadh íogair breise a soláthraíodh do LG Chem agus do thionscal an Aontais an 8 Feabhra 2022.
These changes were included in the additional sensitive disclosure provided to LG Chem and to the Union industry on 8 February 2022.
D’áitigh LG Chem freisin nach bhfuil aon bhunús ag na figiúirí a úsáidtear don ghearrghearradh agus don tearcdhíol i dtaifead an imscrúdaithe agus gur cheart na neamhréireachtaí sin a mhíniú.
LG Chem further argued that the figures used for undercutting and underselling have no basis in the record of the investigation and that these discrepancies should be explained.
Mhaígh LG Chem freisin nár mhínigh an Coimisiún conas a chinn sé an luach tógtha CAL, a úsáideadh chun críocha foghearrtha.
LG Chem also claimed that the Commission did not explain how it determined the constructed CIF value, which was used for undercutting purposes.
Tar éis do LG Chem an Nochtadh Deiridh a éileamh nár áitigh sé nár tharla aon fhoghearradh in 2018.
Following the Final Disclosure LG Chem claimed that it never argued that no undercutting could have occurred in 2018.
Thug an Coimisiún dá aire an soiléiriú ó LG Chem nár fhéach sé leis an éileamh thuas a dhéanamh.
The Commission took note of LG Chem’s clarification that it had not sought to make the above claim.
Ós rud é nár léirigh an LG Chem aon argóint nár thug an Coimisiún aghaidh uirthi, níor mheas an Coimisiún gur sháraigh an Coimisiún an ceart chun dea-riaracháin.
Given that LG Chem did not point to any argument that the Commission had failed to address, the Commission did not consider that the Commission had violated the right to sound administration.
Ach, contrártha do ráitis LG Chem, ní raibh na hacmhainneachtaí breise sin de bhreis ar an éileamh ar mhargadh an Aontais.
However, contrary to the statements of LG Chem, those additional capacities were not in excess of demand on the Union market.
Thairis sin, mhaígh LG Chem go ndearnadh gannmheastachán ar chás ró-acmhainneachta tionscail an Aontais a dearbhaíodh sa ghearán mar nár cuireadh san áireamh acmhainneacht táirgeachta tháirgeoir an Aontais Sumitomo Seika.
Moreover, LG Chem claimed that the overcapacity situation of the Union industry declared in the complaint was underestimated as it did not take into consideration the production capacity of the Union producer Sumitomo Seika.
Ach, contrártha do dhearbhuithe LG Chem, ní chiallaíonn sé sin nár chuir an Coimisiún san áireamh acmhainneacht agus táscairí díobhála na cuideachta.
However, contrary to the assertions of LG Chem, this does not mean that the Commission disregarded the capacities and injury indicators of the company.
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, d’áitigh LG Chem nach féidir leis an gCoimisiún anailís a dhéanamh ar fhorás na méideanna díolacháin ar mhargadh an Aontais ar leithlis ó dhíolacháin ar mhargaí onnmhairithe.
Following the final disclosure LG Chem argued that the Commission cannot analyse the evolution of sales volumes on the Union market in isolation from sales on exports markets.
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, d’áitigh an LG Chem gur tháinig laghdú ar an bhfostaíocht mar gheall ar nuachóiriú agus nach léiríonn sé seo gortú.
Following the final disclosure LG Chem argued that the employment decreased due to modernization and that this does not illustrate injury.
Mar sin féin, bheadh fiú raon níos cúinge gá fós ní gá a cheadú Chem LG a fheiceáil ar an difríocht praghsanna iarbhír agus a mhaíomh cé chomh hard is atá sé.
However, even a narrower range would still necessarily not allow LG Chem to see the actual price difference and argue how high it is.
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.
Cé nár aontaigh an Coimisiún le hargóintí LG Chem, ní raibh an anailís ina cuid den anailís.
The fact that the Commission did not agree with LG Chem’s arguments did not render the analysis partial.
Tar éis an 2ú ADD, d’áitigh LG Chem gur léirigh na táscairí athbhreithnithe treochtaí feabhsaithe i gcomparáid leis na táscairí a nochtadh ar dtús.
Following the 2nd ADD, LG Chem argued that all revised indicators showed improved trends as compared to the indicators initially disclosed.
D’éiligh LG Chem freisin nach raibh aon tionchar riamh ag na hallmhairí ón gCóiré ar infheistíochtaí, mar a léirigh na forbairtí leanúnacha ar tháirgí nua ag táirgeoirí an Aontais.
LG Chem further claimed that the imports from Korea never had any impact on investments, as shown by the continuous developments of new products by Union producers.
Mhaígh LG Chem go raibh éileamh méadaithe ar tháirgí sonraíochta, a fuarthas ón gCóiré mar chúis leis an méadú ar onnmhairí ón gCóiré.
LG Chem argued that an increased demand of spec-in products, which were sourced from Korea has caused the increase in exports from Korea.
Tar éis an nochta dheiridh, d’áitigh an LG Chem nach táirge tráchtearraí é SAP, nach bhfuil caibidlíocht bunaithe ar phraghsanna, ach ar cháilíocht.
Following the Final disclosure LG Chem argued that since SAP is not a commodity product, negotiations are not based on prices, but on quality.