#2360941
Fuair an Coimisiún barúlacha maidir leis an gCéad Nóta ó CISA agus Baosteel.
The Commission received comments on the First Note from CISA and Baosteel.
Scag na torthaí
Bailiúcháin
32 toradh i ndoiciméad amháin
#2361021
Dúirt CISA nach luaitear san Airteagal sin saobhadh suntasach faoina gceadófaí ríomh an ghnáthluacha.
CISA observed that this Article does not mention significant distortions allowing for the construction of normal value.
#2361480
Mhaígh CISA freisin gur cheart paindéim COVID-19 a mheas mar fhachtóir bristeachta.
CISA also claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered as a “causality-breaking” factor.
#2361518
Mhaígh Eviosys agus CISA go ndearna crapadh mhargadh ECCS an Aontais díobháil do thionscal an Aontais.
Eviosys and CISA claimed that the contraction of the Union ECCS market caused injury to the Union industry.
#2361653
D’iarr CISA ar an gCoimisiún féachaint ar fhorbairtí iar-IP freisin.
CISA also requested the Commission to look into post-IP developments.
#2361769
Fuair an Coimisiún barúlacha faoin Dara Nóta ó CISA agus Baosteel.
The Commission received comments on the Second Note from CISA and Baosteel.
#2360976
D’fhéadfaí naisc phearsanta leis an gcontrapháirtí lárnach i measc na bainistíochta a bhunú freisin le haghaidh CISA (tá an Cathaoirleach Feidhmiúcháin ina Rúnaí Páirtí ag an am céanna).
Existence of personal connections to CCP among management could be also established for CISA (Executive Chairman is at the same time Party Secretary).
#2361019
Ina thuairimí ar an gCéad Nóta, chuir CISA roinnt tuairimí isteach, agus thacaigh Baosteel leo freisin agus thacaigh Baosteel leo.
In its comments on the First Note, CISA submitted a number of comments, which were also supported and endorsed by a submission by Baosteel.
#2361023
Mheas an Coimisiún go bhfuil forálacha Airteagal 2(6a) go hiomlán comhsheasmhach le hoibleagáidí EDT an Aontais Eorpaigh agus leis an dlí-eolaíocht a luann CISA.
The Commission considered that the provisions of Article 2(6a) are fully consistent with the European Union's WTO obligations and the jurisprudence cited by CISA.
#2361033
Ar an dara dul síos, mhaígh CISA go bhfuil easpa fianaise ann maidir leis an “saobhadh suntasach” líomhnaithe i ndáil le tionscal ECCS na Síne.
Second, CISA claimed that there is a lack of evidence with regard to the alleged “significant distortions” in relation to the Chinese ECCS industry.
#2361044
Sa tríú dul síos, dúirt CISA gur cheart de réir Airteagal 2(6a)(a) den bhun-Rialachán measúnú a dhéanamh an ann do shaobhadh suntasach i gcás gach táirgeora onnmhairiúcháin ar leithligh.
Third, CISA commented that according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, the assessment concerning the existence of significant distortions should be done for each exporting producer separately.
#2361051
Mar fhreagra ar an Dara Nóta maidir le tosca táirgeachta, d’athdheimhnigh CISA na tuairimí a bhí aige mar fhreagairt ar fhoilsiú an chéad Nóta maidir le tosca táirgeachta.
In reply to the Second Note on factors of production, CISA reiterated the comments it had in reaction to the publication of the first Note on factors of production.
#2361055
Tacaíodh le héilimh CISA freisin san aighneacht ó Baosteel mar fhreagra ar an Dara Nóta maidir le tosca táirgeachta.
CISA’s claims were also supported in the submission by Baosteel in reply to the Second Note on factors of production.
#2361104
Ina fhianaise sin, chinn an Coimisiún diúltú d’éileamh CISA agus úsáid phraghsanna cruach intíre na Brasaíle mar a tuairiscíodh san Fheasachán Miotal a dhearbhú.
In view of this, the Commission decided to reject the claim of CISA and to confirm the use of the Brazilian domestic steel prices as reported in Metal Bulletin.
#2361474
Mhaígh CISA go mbrisfeadh allmhairí ón Ríocht Aontaithe (‘UK’) an nasc cúisíoch idir na hallmhairí ón PRC agus an díobháil a fuarthas i bhfianaise na gcainníochtaí a allmhairíodh ón tír sin.
CISA claimed that imports from the United Kingdom (‘UK’) break the causal link between the imports from the PRC and the injury found given the quantities imported from that country.
#2361490
Mhaígh Eviosys agus CISA gur chuidigh an méadú ar an gcostas amhábhar, chomh maith leis an gcostas iompair, le meath fheidhmíocht thionscal an Aontais.
Eviosys and CISA claimed that the increase of raw material cost, as well as of the transport expenses, contributed to the deterioration of the Union industry performance.
#2361767
Chuir an tSín an Comhlachas Iarainn agus Cruach (‘CISA’) isteach tar éis a thionscanta an 5 Samhain 2021.
China Iron and Steel Association (‘CISA’) submitted comments following initiation on 5 November 2021.
#2361768
Ina theannta sin, d’iarr CISA mar aon le Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., an tSín agus GDH Zhongyue (Zhongshan) Tinplate Industry Co., Ltd. éisteacht le seirbhísí an Choimisiúin.
In addition, CISA together with Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., China and GDH Zhongyue (Zhongshan) Tinplate Industry Co., Ltd. requested a hearing with the Commission services.
#2361775
Thairis sin, mhaígh CISA, ó foilsíodh tuarascáil na Síne in 2017, nach bhféadfadh sé a bheith infheidhme maidir leis an tréimhse imscrúdaithe a chumhdaíonn Iúil 2020 – Meitheamh 2021.
Furthermore, CISA claimed that since the China report was published in 2017, it could not be applicable for the investigation period covering July 2020 – June 2021.
#2361776
Last, thug CISA faoi deara nach bhfuil an tuarascáil tSín aghaidh a thabhairt ar thionscal na Síne ECCS per se, ach amháin an tionscal cruach Síneach i gcoitinne.
Last, CISA observed that the China report does not address the Chinese ECCS industry per se, but only the Chinese steel industry in general.
#2361020
Sa chéad dul síos, mhaígh CISA nach sainaithnítear i gComhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”) coincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh in Airteagal 2.2 ADA, airteagal faoina gceadaítear ríomh an ghnáthluacha sa chás nach bhfuil aon díolachán i ngnáthchúrsa na trádála agus sa chás sin amháin.
First, CISA submitted that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) does not recognise the concept of significant distortions in Article 2.2 of ADA, which only allows the construction of the normal value if there are no sales in the ordinary course of trade.
#2361022
Ar an dara dul síos, mhaígh CISA gur ghá aon luach tógtha a ríomh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2.2.1.1 de ADA agus le léirmhíniú Chomhlacht Achomhairc na hEagraíochta Domhanda Trádála (EDT) i gcás AE – Bithdhíosal, chomh maith le painéal EDT i gcás AE – Modheolaíochtaí Coigeartaithe Costasa II (an Rúis) (DS494), nach luaitear coincheap an saobhadh suntasach ná nach bhféadfaí neamhaird a dhéanamh de shonraí na cuideachta onnmhairithe.
Second, CISA claimed that any constructed value would need to be calculated in accordance with Article 2.2.1.1 of ADA and with the WTO Appellate Body's interpretation given in the EU – Biodiesel case, as well as by the WTO panel in the EU – Cost Adjustment Methodologies II (Russia) (DS494) case, which do not mention the concept of significant distortions nor the possibility to disregard the exporting company’s data.
#2361034
De réir CISA, tuarascáil na Síne ar a raibh an Coimisiún ag brath, theip uirthi na caighdeáin maidir le fianaise neamhchlaonta agus oibiachtúil agus le fianaise a bhfuil luach fianaise leordhóthanach acu a chomhlíonadh.
According to CISA, the China report relied on by the Commission failed to meet the standards of impartial and objective evidence and evidence of sufficient probative value.
#2361046
Mhaígh CISA nár cheart torthaí “ar fud na tíre” nó “ar fud na tionsclaíochta” a cheadú agus ós rud é go ndearnadh sampláil sa chás seo, bhí sé riachtanach ar a laghad saobhadh a bhunú do gach táirgeoir samplaithe agus do gach fachtóir táirgeachta a d’úsáid siad féin.
CISA claimed that “country-wide” or “industry-wide” findings should not be allowed and since there was sampling in this case, it was at least necessary to establish distortions for every sampled producer and each factor of production used by them separately.
#2361053
Thíolaic CISA nár cheart don Choimisiún tús a chur leis an nós imeachta bunaithe ar Airteagal 2(6ú) den bhun-Rialachán sula ndéanfaidh sé cinneadh dearfach iarbhír i dtaobh an ann do shaobhadh suntasach.
CISA submitted that the Commission should not start the procedure based on Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation before actually positively determining the existence of significant distortions.
#2361054
Dá bhrí sin, de réir CISA, níor cheart don Choimisiún céimeanna a ghlacadh amhail ceistneoirí Airteagal 2(6ú) a sheoladh, agus tús a chur le sonraí gnáthluacha a lorg ó fhoinsí malartacha go dtí go suífear go dearfach go bhfuil saobhadh suntasach ann.
Therefore, according to CISA, the Commission should not undertake steps such as sending Article 2(6a) questionnaires, and start looking for normal value data from alternative sources until the existence of significant distortions is positively established.
#2361100
Tar éis an Dara nóta, mhaígh CISA nár cheart praghsanna intíre na Brasaíle ar tháirgí cruach réidh a úsáid mar phraghas tagarmhairc toisc go raibh siad i bhfad níos airde ná praghsanna i margaí eile amhail an Eoraip, an India nó an Tuirc.
Following the Second note, CISA claimed that the Brazil domestic prices of flat steel products should not be used as a benchmark price as they were significantly higher than prices in other markets such as Europe, India or Turkey.
#2361447
Bunaithe ar an gcinneadh céanna, d’áitigh an t-úsáideoir agus CISA gur úsáideadh allmhairí, go háirithe ón tSín, le haghaidh feidhmchlár íseal mar gheall ar a gcáilíocht níos ísle, agus gurbh fhearr le custaiméirí an Aontais a dtáirgí a aimsiú go háitiúil toisc go raibh aga tionscanta níos faide, costas iompair níos airde ag allmhairí, chomh maith le leibhéil cháilíochta níos ísle agus agaí tionscanta níos faide.
Based on the same decision, the user and CISA argued that imports, in particular from China, were used mostly for low-end applications because of their lower quality, and that Union customers preferred to source their products locally because imports had longer lead times, higher transport cost, as well as lower quality levels and longer lead times.
#2361479
Mhaígh Eviosys agus CISA ón úsáideoir gurb í an ghéarchéim a bhí ann mar thoradh ar phaindéim COVID-19, as ar eascair méadú nádúrtha ar na costais mar aon le laghdú ar an éileamh, a bhí ina cúis leis an neamhréir idir éabhlóid na gcostas agus na bpraghsanna le linn na tréimhse sin.
The user Eviosys and CISA claimed that the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a natural increase in costs combined with a contraction of the demand, has been the cause of the mismatch between the evolution of costs and prices during that period.
#2361643
Ar an tríú dul síos, mhaígh Eviosys agus CISA go raibh saintréithe ag margadh ECCS an Aontais le duopoly i gcás ina mbeadh rogha táirgí agus cumhacht mhargála na n-úsáideoirí iartheachtacha faoi bhagairt ag forchur beart frithdhumpála agus go ndearnadh tagairt do chinneadh an Choimisiúin um chumasc atá luaite san aithris (195).
Third, Eviosys and CISA claimed that the Union ECCS market was characterised by a duopoly where the product choice and bargaining power of downstream users would be threatened by the imposition of anti-dumping measures and referred to the merger Commission decision mentioned in recital (195).
#2361647
Ar deireadh, tharraing dhá úsáideoir eile agus CISA aird ar na bearta cosanta atá ann cheana maidir le hallmhairiú táirgí cruach, lena n-áirítear ECCS, a thugann cosaint leordhóthanach cheana féin do thionscal an Aontais agus nár úsáideadh cuótaí na n-allmhairí ón tSín a mhéid is féidir.
Finally, two other users and CISA pointed to the existing safeguard measures on imports of steel products, including ECCS, already sufficiently protect the Union industry and that the quotas for imports from China have not been used to the maximum.
#2361654
I ndáil leis sin, chuir CISA barúlacha isteach an 31 Márta 2022 maidir le forbairtí iar-IP agus maidir le hiarmhairt na mbeart a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann do thionscail iartheachtacha an AE.
In this respect, CISA submitted on 31 March 2022 comments on post-IP developments and on the consequence of possible measures for the EU downstream industries.
