Ina theannta sin, mhaígh Connect Com nach raibh sa ghearán ach cóip de ghearán an imscrúdaithe frithdhumpála agus gur cheart don ghearánach idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir an díobháil líomhnaithe de dheasca dumpála agus an díobháil líomhnaithe de dheasca fóirdheontais.
In addition, Connect Com claimed that the complaint was a mere copy of the complaint of the anti-dumping investigation and that the complainant should have differentiated the alleged injury due to dumping from the alleged injury due to subsidy.
#715441
Beidh san áireamh i ngearán faoi mhír 1 fianaise maidir le dumpáil, díobháil agus nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí a líomhnaítear a dumpáladh agus an díobháil líomhnaithe.
A complaint under paragraph 1 shall include evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury.
#2015145
Mhaígh an táirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin Xiamen Xiashun gurb é ceannacháin an táirge lena mbaineann a cheannaigh tionscal an Aontais féin ba chúis leis an díobháil líomhnaithe.
The exporting producer Xiamen Xiashun claimed that the alleged injury suffered was caused by purchases of the product concerned by the Union industry itself.
#2092021
Mar thoradh ar an méadú ar phraghsanna, bheadh táirgeoirí an Aontais in ann a gcorrlaigh bhrabúis a fheabhsú chun teacht slán as aon díobháil líomhnaithe a rinneadh le linn na tréimhse imscrúdaithe.
In turn, the price increase would have allowed the Union producers to improve their margins of profit to a point where they would have recovered from any alleged injury suffered in the investigation period.
#2717222
Mhaígh na páirtithe sin go raibh cúiseanna eile leis an díobháil líomhnaithe, amhail paindéim COVID-19, méaduithe ar chostais thionscal an Aontais nó drochfheidhmíocht onnmhairiúcháin an tionscail.
These parties claimed that the alleged injury had other causes, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, increases in the Union industry’s costs or its poor export performance.
#3000750
Mhaígh páirtithe leasmhara gurbh é praghas níos ísle onnmhairí thionscal an Aontais ba chúis leis an díobháil líomhnaithe i bpáirt.
Interested parties claimed that the lower price of the Union industry’s exports was partially causing the alleged injury.
#716201
Beidh san áireamh i ngearán faoi mhír 1 go leor fianaise maidir le fóirdheontais in-fhrithchúitithe (lena n-áirítear méid na bhfóirdheontas sin, más féidir), díobháil a bheith ann chomh maith le nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí a líomhnaítear gur tugadh fóirdheontas ina leith agus an díobháil líomhnaithe.
A complaint under paragraph 1 shall include sufficient evidence of the existence of countervailable subsidies (including, if possible, of their amount), injury and a causal link between the allegedly subsidised imports and the alleged injury.
#1788904
fógra a fhoilsiú in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh; fógrófar san fhógra tionscnamh an imscrúdaithe, léireofar ann raon feidhme an imscrúdaithe, an tríú tír nó eintiteas tríú tír a líomhnaítear a bheith páirteach i gcleachtais a shaobhann an iomaíocht agus an díobháil líomhnaithe nó an bhagairt díobhála líomhnaithe, an t-aeriompróir nó na haeriompróirí de chuid an Aontais lena mbaineann agus luafar ann an tréimhse ina bhféadfaidh páirtithe leasmhara iad féin a chur in iúl, a gcuid tuairimí a chur i láthair i scríbhinn, faisnéis a chur isteach nó iarratas a dhéanamh ar éisteacht a fháil os comhair an Choimisiúin.
publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union; the notice shall announce the initiation of the investigation, indicate the scope of the investigation, the third country or third-country entity which has allegedly been engaged in practices distorting competition and the alleged injury or threat of injury, the Union air carriers concerned, and state the period within which interested parties may make themselves known, present their views in writing, submit information or apply to be heard by the Commission.
#2070782
Mhaígh CPME gur léirigh na sonraí ón iar-tréimhse imscrúdaithe go raibh tionscal an Aontais ag téarnamh ón díobháil líomhnaithe a baineadh dó sa chéad leath de 2020 toisc gur mhéadaigh praghsanna gliocóil mona-eitiléine (MEG) le linn na tréimhse idir mí Iúil agus mí na Samhna 2020.
CPME claimed that the post-IP data showed that the Union industry was recovering from the alleged injury suffered in the first half of 2020 as the prices of MEG increased in the period July – November 2020.
#2091656
Tar éis nochtadh sealadach, d’éiligh GOT, ar an gcaoi chéanna, gur ar an tréimhse 2016-2019 ba cheart an scrúdú ar an díobháil líomhnaithe ar an tionscal intíre a bhunú, rud nár tháinig i gceist i gcás gach táscaire díobhála de réir mar a mhaígh sé.
After provisional disclosure, the GOT claimed, in the same vein, that the examination of the alleged injury on the domestic industry should be based on the period 2016-2019, which it claimed was not case for all injury indicators.
#2091852
Chuir GOT in iúl nach bhféadfadh na míniúcháin atá ann údar maith a thabhairt le nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí dumpáilte agus an díobháil líomhnaithe idir 2018 agus 2019 ar an bhforas go raibh méideanna allmhairí na Tuirce cobhsaí agus gur tháinig laghdú ar phraghsanna allmhairí na Tuirce agus ar chostas táirgthe thionscal an Aontais araon le linn na tréimhse sin.
The GOT submitted that the explanations therein could not justify a causal link between the dumped imports and the alleged injury between 2018 and 2019 on the grounds that Turkish import volumes were stable and that both the prices of Turkish imports and the Union industry cost of production dropped in that period.
#2154710
Foráiltear le hAirteagal 5.2 den ADA agus le hAirteagal 5(2) den bhun-Rialachán gur cheart fianaise ar na nithe seo a leanas a áireamh sa ghearán: a) dumpáil; b) díobháil; agus c) nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí dumpáilte agus an díobháil líomhnaithe.
Article 5.2 of the ADA and Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation provide that a complaint should include evidence of: a) dumping; b) injury; and c) a causal link between the dumped imports and alleged injury.
#2180663
Ar dhóigh níos ginearálta, tar éis an nochta deiridh, shonraigh SGRE gur cheart a chuimsiú in anailís an Choimisiúin measúnú níos grinne ar cibé acu a mhaolaigh nó nár mhaolaigh an méadú 21 % ar an gcostas táirgthe an nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí a líomhnaítear a dumpáladh agus aon díobháil líomhnaithe a bhain do thionscal SWT an Aontais.
More generally, following final disclosure SGRE stated that the Commission’s analysis should have involved a closer assessment of whether the 21 % increase in the cost of production did not attenuate the causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and any injury alleged to exist on the part of the Union SWT industry.
#2282018
Dhearbhaigh Rialtas na Síne gur chuir an méid sin cosc air na maímh dhíobhála a rinne an gearánach a fhrisnéis i gceart, agus gur chosúil gur tháinig na freagraí ceistneora sin salach ar an ngearán i ndáil leis an díobháil líomhnaithe.
The GOC asserted that this had prevented it from properly rebutting the injury claims made by the complainant, and that these questionnaire responses seemed to contradict the complaint with regard to the alleged injury.
#2282061
Maidir leis an tréimhse a bhaineann le hallmhairí a thomhas sa ghearán, ba iad cleachtais dumpála agus fóirdheontas araon ba chúis leis an díobháil líomhnaithe, agus dá bhrí sin bheadh tréimhse imscrúdúcháin éagsúil ina hualach míréasúnach ar an tionscal gearánach.
Concerning the time period of the measuring of imports in the complaint, the alleged injury has been caused by both dumping and subsidies practices, and therefore a different investigation period would have been unreasonably burden on the complaining industry.
#2701002
Go deimhin, ó foilsíodh an fógra tionscnaimh, tráth a bhí na táirgeoirí onnmhairiúcháin ar an eolas faoin dumpáil agus faoin díobháil líomhnaithe, nó ba cheart iad a bheith ar an eolas faoi sin, tháinig méadú breise ar allmhairí an táirge lena mbaineann ar bhealach lena bhféadfar dochar mór a dhéanamh d’éifeacht cheartaitheach na ndleachtanna frithdhumpála, le linn na tréimhse réamhnochta freisin.
Indeed, since the publication of the notice of initiation, when exporting producers were aware or should have been aware of the alleged dumping and injury, imports of the product concerned have further increased in a manner which may seriously undermine the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duties also during the pre-disclosure period.
#2717218
D’áitigh Rialtas na Tuirce gurbh iarracht d’aon ghnó a bhí sa deighilt a rinneadh ar thionscal an Aontais i dtrí ghrúpa dhifriúla de réir táirgeacht in aghaidh na cuideachta, iarracht ar thaobh an ghearánaigh an díobháil líomhnaithe a chur i dtábhacht don ghrúpa beag gearánach.
The GoT argued that the split of the Union industry into three different groups according to production per company was a deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to underline the alleged injury for the small group of the complainants.
#2816895
De réir CISA, is é an t-aon chonclúid is féidir a bhaint amach go réasúnta nach féidir le hallmhairí ón tSín a bheith ina gcúis le haon díobháil líomhnaithe nó atarlú díobhála do thionscal an Aontais.
According to CISA, the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached would be that any alleged injury or recurrence of injury to the Union industry cannot be caused by imports from China.
#3128158
Maidir leis na maímh gur théarnaigh tionscal an Aontais ó aon díobháil líomhnaithe agus nach bhfuil bunús leis na líomhaintí go leanfar den díobháil agus go gcuirfear tús léi arís, meabhraítear, i gcás go bhfaightear díobháil ábhartha, gur gá scrúdú a dhéanamh, inter alia, ar na tosca ábhartha mar a thuairiscítear in Airteagal 5(2)(d) den bhun-Rialachán.
As regards the claims that Union industry has recovered from any alleged injury and that the allegations on the continuation and recurrence of injury are unfounded, it is recalled that a finding of material injury requires an examination, inter alia, of the relevant factors as described in Article 5(2)(d) of the basic Regulation.
#3128928
Tar éis an nocht chinntithigh, mhaígh na trí pháirtí leasmhara Shíneacha: Hebei Jiheng, Heze Huayi agus Puyang Cleanway gur tháinig tionscal an Aontais chucu féin ó aon díobháil líomhnaithe toisc gur léirigh cuid de na táscairí díobhála treocht fhabhrach (táirgeadh, acmhainneacht táirgeachta, úsáid acmhainneachta, fostaíocht, táirgiúlacht, fardail agus meánphraghas díola aonaid san Aontas agus lasmuigh den Aontas).
Following definitive disclosure, the three Chinese interested parties: Hebei Jiheng, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway claimed that the Union industry had recovered from any alleged injury as some of the injury indicators showed a favourable trend (production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, employment, productivity, inventories and average unit sales price in the Union and outside the Union).
#3241914
Tar éis an nochta deiridh, d’easaontaigh CCCMC agus GMIA leis an gCoimisiún, ag athdhearbhú nárbh iad allmhairí EMD ón tSín ba chúis leis an díobháil líomhnaithe, ach nach raibh tionscal an Aontais in ann EMD ardcháilíochta de ghrád alcaileach a sholáthar nó a sholáthar i gcainníocht leordhóthanach, agus líomhnaíodh go raibh measúnú an Choimisiúin neamhiomlán, mar a shonraítear thíos.
Following final disclosure, CCCMC and GMIA disagreed with the Commission, reiterating that the alleged injury was not caused by the imports of EMD from China, but rather by the Union industry’s inability to supply or to supply in sufficient quantity the high-quality alkaline grade EMD and alleged that the Commission’s assessment was incomplete, as detailed below.