#2060569
Ada Su Ürünleri Turizm İnșaat ve Ticaret Ltd. Ști.
Ada Su Ürünleri Turizm İnșaat ve Ticaret Ltd Ști.
Filter results
Collections
163 results in 39 documents
#2179639
Ní liostaítear saobhadh suntasach in Airteagal 2.2 ADA.
Significant distortions are not listed in Article 2.2 ADA.
#2179675
Luaigh Chengxi Shipyard freisin nach bhfuil coinníollacha Airteagal 2 ADA, go háirithe Airteagal 2.2.1 ADA, comhoiriúnach le coinníollacha Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán.
Chengxi Shipyard added that the conditions of Article 2 ADA, in particular Article 2.2.1 ADA are not compatible with the conditions of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.
#2339433
ADA lena gceanglaítear úsáid an chostais táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh agus an gnáthluach á ríomh.
In this connection, the GOC recalled that the Appellate Body in DS473 and the panel in DS494 asserted that according to Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA, as long as the records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation correspond – within acceptable limits – in an accurate and reliable manner to all the actual costs incurred by the particular producer or exporter for the product under consideration, they can be deemed to ‘reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration’, and the investigation authority should use such records to determine the production costs of the investigated producers.
#2339452
ADA, mheabhraigh an Coimisiún nach gá don dlí náisiúnta na téarmaí ceannann céanna leis na téarmaí atá sna Comhaontuithe cumhdaithe a úsáid chun bheith i gcomhréir leis na Comhaontuithe sin, agus go measann sé go gcomhlíonann Airteagal 2(6a) rialacha ábhartha ADA go hiomlán (agus go háirithe na féidearthachtaí a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 2.2 ADA maidir leis an gnáthluach a ríomh). Sa bhreis air sin, i ndáil le DS494, mheabhraigh an Coimisiún go ndearna an tAontas agus Cónaidhm na Rúise araon achomharc i gcoinne thorthaí an Phainéil, ní críochnaitheach na torthaí sin agus dá bhrí sin, i gcomhréir le cásdlí EDT, níl stádas dlíthiúil acu i gcóras EDT, ó tharla nach bhfuil siad glactha ag Comhlacht um Réiteach Díospóide.
In any event, the Panel Report in that dispute specifically considered the provisions in Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation to be outside the scope of that dispute.
#2346064
Thairis sin, maidir leis an maíomh nach liostaítear coincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh a chuimsítear in Airteagal 2(6a) den bun-Rialachán i measc na gcásanna inar ceadmhach an gnáthluach a ríomh de bhun Airteagal 2.2. ADA, mheabhraigh an Coimisiún nach gá don dlí náisiúnta na téarmaí ceannann céanna leis na téarmaí atá sna Comhaontuithe cumhdaithe a úsáid chun bheith i gcomhréir leis na Comhaontuithe sin, agus go measann sé go gcomhlíonann Airteagal 2(6a) rialacha ábhartha ADA go hiomlán (agus go háirithe na féidearthachtaí a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 2.2 ADA maidir leis an gnáthluach a ríomh).
Moreover, concerning the claim that the concept of significant distortions included in Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is not listed among the situations in which it is permissible to construct the normal value pursuant to Article 2.2 ADA, the Commission recalled that domestic law does not need to use the exact same terms as the covered Agreements in order to be compliant with those Agreements, and that it considers Article 2(6a) to be fully compliant with the relevant rules of the ADA (and, in particular, the possibilities to construct normal value provided in Article 2.2 ADA).
#2346665
Ada, tugadh aghaidh ar an argóint sin cheana féin in aithris.
ADA, this argument has already been addressed in recital (43).
#2456616
Stát Idaho — Ada 06
State of Idaho - Ada 06
#2456626
Stát Idaho — Ada 08
State of Idaho - Ada 08
#2531317
Stát Idaho - Ada 06
State of Idaho – Ada 06
#2585952
Comhdhúile heitreachioglacha a bhfuil heitrea-ada(i)mh ocsaigine amháin iontu (gan lachtóin a áireamh)
Heterocyclic compounds with oxygen only hetero-atom(s) (excluding other lactones)
#2810103
Meánmhéid laethúil (ADA)
Average Daily Amount (ADA)
#2816215
Ar an dara dul síos, mhaígh CISA nach sainaithnítear i gComhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”) coincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh in Airteagal 2.2 ADA.
Second, CISA submitted that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) does not recognize the concept of significant distortions in Article 2.2 of ADA.
#2841366
Ar an dara dul síos, mhaígh CISA nach sainaithnítear i gComhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (‘ADA’) coincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh in Airteagal 2.2 ADA.
Second, CISA submitted that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) does not recognize the concept of significant distortions in Article 2.2 of ADA.
#2018725
Sa chéad dul síos, mhaígh CCCMC 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, CCCMC claimed that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) does not recognise the concept of significant distortions in Article 2.2 ADA, which only allows the construction of the normal value if there are no sales in the ordinary course of trade.
#2141259
Thíolaic siad nach gceadaítear leis an modheolaíocht a leagtar síos in Airteagal 2 den ADA faisnéis a úsáid seachas an fhaisnéis sa tír is onnmhaireoir chun an gnáthluach a shuí agus nach bhfuil aon ní sa ADA a cheadódh neamhaird a dhéanamh ar chostais agus ar phraghsanna an táirgeora onnmhairiúcháin ná ar chostais agus ar phraghsanna atá sa tír is onnmhaireoir ná praghsanna nó tagarmharcanna a líomhnaítear a bheith saofa a chur ina n-ionad i dtír ionadaíoch iomchuí, mar a thugtar air.
They submitted that the methodology stipulated in Article 2 of the ADA does not permit the use of information other than that in the exporting country in order to establish the normal value and that there is nothing in the ADA which would allow disregarding the costs and prices of the exporting producer or those existing in the exporting country, and replace them instead with allegedly undistorted prices or benchmarks in a so-called appropriate representative country.
#2152622
Ina mbarúlacha tar éis an nochta deiridh, mhaígh GKSA nach raibh an anailís ar mhéid na n-allmhairí bunaithe ar scrúdú oibiachtúil ar an bhfianaise dhearfach mar a éilítear faoi Airteagal 3.1 de chuid ADA, agus nach raibh míniú leormhaith nó réasúnta chun tacú leis an toradh gurbh ann do mhéadú suntasach ar allmhairí MEG ón Araib Shádach nó ón Araib Shádach agus ó SAM ar bhonn carnach de réir bhrí Airteagal 3.2 ADA.
In their comments following final disclosure, the GKSA claimed that the analysis of import volume was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence as required under Article 3.1 of ADA nor was there a reasoned and adequate explanation in support of the finding that there was a significant increase in MEG imports from the KSA or from the KSA and the US on a cumulative basis within the meaning of Article 3.2 of ADA.
#2154709
De bhrí, mar a thug CCCME le fios, go ndéantar tagairt in Airteagal 5.2 den ADA d’Airteagal 3.4 den ADA, agus go ndéantar tagairt in Airteagal 5(2) den bhun-Rialachán d’Airteagal 3(5) den bhun-Rialachán, níl sa tagairt sin ach tagairt léiritheach sa dá chás (‘amhail [tosca agus innéacsanna] a liostaítear i míreanna 2 agus 4 d’Airteagal 3’ agus ‘amhail[tosca agus innéacsanna] a liostaítear in Airteagal 3(3) agus (5)’).
Whereas, as the CCCME noted, Article 5.2. of the ADA makes reference to Article 3.4 of the ADA, and that Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation makes reference to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, such a reference is merely illustrative in both instances (‘such as [factors and indices] listed in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 3’ and ‘such as [factors and indices] listed in Article 3(3) and (5)’).
#2179726
Ar an dara dul síos, d’áitigh Rialtas na Síne go bhfuil ríomh an ghnáthluacha i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le ADA, go háirithe le hAirteagal 2.2. ADA lena soláthraítear liosta uileghabhálach de chásanna inar féidir an gnáthluach a ríomh, ach gan ‘saobhadh suntasach’ a bheith liostaithe i measc na gcásanna sin.
Second, the GOC argued that constructing normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the ADA, in particular with Article 2.2. of the ADA which provides and exhaustive list of situations where the normal value can be constructed, the “significant distortions” not being listed among such situations.
#2300145
Ar an dara dul síos, d’áitigh Rialtas na Síne go bhfuil ríomh an ghnáthluacha i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le ADA, go háirithe le hAirteagal 2.2. ADA lena soláthraítear liosta uileghabhálach de chásanna inar féidir an gnáthluach a ríomh, ach gan “saobhadh suntasach” a bheith liostaithe i measc na gcásanna sin.
Second, the GOC and the CCCME argued that constructing normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the ADA, in particular with Article 2.2. of the ADA which provides an exhaustive list of situations where the normal value can be constructed, with “significant distortions” not being listed among such situations.
#2339487
Ar an tríú dul síos, d’áitigh Shenghua gur le reachtaíocht an Aontais tugadh isteach coincheap nach ann dó in ADA a mhéid a fhoráiltear inti maidir leis an ngnáthluach a ríomh má shuitear gurb ann do shaobhadh suntasach, d’ainneoin nach dtugtar sainordú le hAirteagal 2.2 ADA an gnáthluach a ríomh ach amháin i gcás nach ann d’aon díolachán le linn an ghnáthchúrsa trádála.
Third, Shenghua submitted that the EU legislation introduced a concept that does not exist in the ADA, insofar as it provides for constructing normal value if existence of significant distortions is established, while Article 2.2 of the ADA mandates the construction of normal value only if there are no sale in the ordinary course of trade.
#2346060
Ar an dara dul síos, d’áitigh Rialtas na Síne go bhfuil ríomh an ghnáthluacha i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le ADA, go háirithe le hAirteagal 2.2. ADA lena soláthraítear liosta uileghabhálach de chásanna inar féidir an gnáthluach a ríomh, ach gan “saobhadh suntasach” a bheith liostaithe i measc na gcásanna sin.
Second, the GOC and CCCME argued that constructing the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the ADA, in particular with Article 2.2. of the ADA which provides an exhaustive list of situations where the normal value can be constructed, the ‘significant distortions’ not being listed among such situations.
#2346121
Ar an dara dul síos, mheas CCCME go sáraíonn Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán Airteagal 2.2.1.1 den ADA agus an rialú in DS437 de bhrí faoi Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán, a luaithe a shuíonn an Coimisiún go bhfuil “saobhadh suntasach” ann, ní cheanglaítear ar an gCoimisiún dul tríd an dá choinníoll d’Airteagal 2.2.1.1 den ADA, eadhon an bhfuil na taifid i gcomhréir le GAAP na tíre onnmhairithe, agus an léiríonn na taifid go réasúnta na costais a bhaineann le táirgeadh agus díol an táirge faoi bhreithniú an táirge.
Second, the CCCME considered that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation violates Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA and the ruling in DS437 because under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, once the Commission establishes the existence of ‘significant distortions’, it is not required to go through the two conditions of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA, namely whether the records are in accordance with the GAAP of the exporting country, and whether the records reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sales of the product under consideration.
#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.
#2480200
A mhalairt ar fad, dírítear san athbhreithniú sin ar chinneadh a dhéanamh maidir le corrlach dumpála chun a áirithiú gur féidir le leibhéal na ndleachtanna deireadh a chur le héifeachtaí na dumpála díobhálaí go leordhóthanach agus, dá bhrí sin, tá údar leis an athbhreithniú faoi Airteagal 11.1 agus Airteagal 11.2 de ADA, agus tá sé i gcomhréir iomlán le rialacha infheidhme ADA lena n-áirítear Airteagal 2.
On the contrary, such review focuses on the dumping margin determination to ensure that the level of duties can adequately eliminate the effects of injurious dumping and is therefore warranted under Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the ADA, and in full conformity with the applicable ADA rules including Article 2.
#2503600
Dá réir sin, measann an Coimisiún go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán go hiomlán i gcomhréir le rialacha ábhartha ADA, lena n-áirítear na féidearthachtaí an gnáthluach a ríomh dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 2.2 de ADA.
Consequently, the Commission considers Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation to be fully compliant with the relevant rules of the ADA, including the possibilities to construct normal value provided in Article 2.2 of the ADA.
#2560400
Ar an gcéad dul síos, rinne Rialtas na Síne, chomh maith le CISA an argóint go bhfuil sé ar neamhréir leis an gComhaontú Frithdhumpála (“ADA”) de chuid EDT an gnáthluach a thógáil i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán, go háirithe le hAirteagal 2.2 den ADA lena soláthraítear liosta iomlán de chásanna inar féidir leis an ngnáthluach a thógáil, gan an “saobhadh suntasach” a bheith liostaithe i measc cásanna den sórt sin.
First, the GOC, as well as CISA, argued that constructing the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), in particular with Article 2.2. of the ADA which provides an exhaustive list of situations where the normal value can be constructed, the ‘significant distortions’ not being listed among such situations.
#2560559
Mhaígh Rialtas na Brasaíle, faoin ADA, gurb iad praghsanna na n-allmhairí dumpáilte agus an táirge comhchosúil sa Bhallstát is allmhaireoir ina n-iomláine na bunpharaiméadair chun scrúdú a dhéanamh maidir le sladghearradh agus nach raibh aon bhunús le mír 1 ná mír 2 d’Airteagal 3 den ADA ná le haon fhoráil eile sa Chomhaontú maidir le cosc ar allmhairí ó chuideachtaí nach ndéantar de thairgeoirí/onnmhaireoirí samplacha iad, ós rud é go meastar iad a bheith dumpáilte.
The GOB claimed that under the ADA, the basic parameters for carrying out an undercutting test are the prices of the dumped imports and the like product in the importing Member as a whole and that there is no basis in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the ADA nor in any other provision in the Agreement for excluding imports from companies not composing the producers/exporters sample, since they are considered to be dumped.
#2717116
Mhaígh na páirtithe sin freisin nárbh fhéidir céatadán den sórt sin a mheas mar chion ollmhór den tionscal intíre de réir Airteagal 4 den Chomhaontú maidir le Cur Chun Feidhme Airteagal VI den Chomhaontú Ginearálta um Tharaifí agus Trádáil 1994 (“EDT ADA”), agus go raibh amhras ann go ndearna táirgeoirí intíre an gearán nó go ndearnadh an gearán ar a son, ar táirgeoirí iad a chomhlíon an tairseach 25 % a bhí leagtha síos in Airteagal 5(4) de EDT ADA.
These parties also claimed that such percentage could not be considered a major proportion of the domestic industry according to Article 4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘WTO ADA’), and that it was doubtful that the complaint was made by or on behalf of domestic producers fulfilling the 25 % threshold set in Article 5(4) of WTO ADA.
#2745565
Ar dhóigh níos sonraí, maidir leis an gcéad argóint, mhaígh na páirtithe nach n-aithnítear le Comhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”) coincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh in Airteagal 2.2 ADA, airteagal faoina gceadaítear ríomh an ghnáthluacha i gcás nach bhfuil aon díolachán i ngnáthchúrsa na trádála nó i gcás staid áirithe sa mhargadh agus sna cásanna sin amháin.
More specifically, concerning the first argument, the parties took the position that 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 or in the case of a particular market situation.
#2856397
Ar an dara dul síos, d’áitigh Rialtas na Síne go bhfuil ríomh an ghnáthluacha i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir leis an gComhaontú Frithdhumpála (‘ADA’), go háirithe le hAirteagal 2.2. de ADA lena soláthraítear liosta uileghabhálach de chásanna inar féidir an gnáthluach a ríomh, ach gan ‘saobhadh suntasach’ a bheith liostaithe i measc na gcásanna sin.
Second, the GOC argued that constructing the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), in particular with Article 2.2. of the ADA which provides an exhaustive list of situations where the normal value can be constructed, the “significant distortions” not being listed among such situations.
#3000058
Chun tacú lena mhaíomh, thug an táirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin na hargóintí céanna agus a thug CCCMC/GMIA, go sonrach nach n-aithnítear in Airteagal 2.2 de ADA EDT an coincheap maidir le saobhadh suntasach, agus nach bhfuil aon airteagal in ADA lena gceadaítear sonraí ó thríú tír nach féidir a léiriú go bhfuil praghsanna nó leibhéal costais na tíre is onnmhaireoir le húsáid chun an gnáthluach a chinneadh.
In support of its claim the exporting producer provided the same arguments as CCCMC/GMIA, notably that Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA does not recognise the concept of significant distortions, and that there is no provision in the ADA allowing data from a third country which cannot reflect the prices or cost level of the exporting country to be used for determining the normal value.
#3219785
D’áitigh CCCMC thairis sin gur cosúil go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le Comhaontú Frithdhumpála na hEagraíochta Domhanda Trádála (‘ADA’), toisc (i) nach bhfuil tagairt don choincheap a bhaineann le ‘saobhadh suntasach’ in Airteagal 2.2 de ADA; (ii) go gceadaítear le hAirteagal 2(6a) úsáid sonraí ó thír ionadaíoch iomchuí nó praghsanna idirnáisiúnta chun gnáthluach a chumadh; agus (iii) is cosúil go sáraíonn Airteagal 2(6a) Airteagal 2.2.1.1. den Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála.
The CCCMC argued further that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation appears to be incompatible with the World Trade Organisation Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), as (i) there is no reference to the concept of ‘significant distortions’ in Article 2.2 of the ADA; (ii) Article 2(6a) allows the use of data from an appropriate representative country or international prices to construct normal value; and (iii) Article 2(6a) appears to violate Article 2.2.1.1. of the ADA.
#3241655
I dtaca leis na hargóintí a rinne Xiangtan maidir le neamhoiriúnacht líomhnaithe Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán le dlí EDT, go háirithe forálacha Airteagal 2.2 agus 2.2.1.1 ADA, mar aon leis na torthaí in DS473, d’athdhearbhaigh an Coimisiún an tuairim a chur sé in iúl sa Chéad Nóta go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán go hiomlán i gcomhréir le hoibleagáidí an Aontais faoi dhlí EDT, go háirithe forálacha ADA.
Concerning Xiangtan’s arguments on the alleged incompatibility of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with WTO law, in particular the provisions of Article 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 ADA, as well as the findings in DS473, the Commission reiterated its view expressed in the First Note that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is fully in line with the EU’s obligations under the WTO law, in particular the provisions of the ADA.
#2014378
Sna barúlacha uaidh, léirigh táirgeoir onnmhairiúcháin amháin, Xiamen Xiashun, ar an gcéad dul síos, nach bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) i gcomhréir le Comhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”).
In its comments, one exporting producer, Xiamen Xiashun, firstly pointed out that Article 2(6a) is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’).
#2014393
Ar an dara dul síos, thug Xiamen Xiashun ar aird go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den Bhunrialachán ar neamhréir le hAirteagal 2.2.2 ADA.
Second, Xiamen Xiashun submitted that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2.2.2 ADA.
#2014395
Dá bhrí sin, thug Xiamen Xiashun ar aird nach raibh Airteagal 2(6a) den Bhunrialachán ag luí le hAirteagal 2.2.2 ADA.
Xiamen Xiashun therefore submitted that the Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was incompatible with Article 2.2.2 ADA.
#2018815
Dá bhrí sin, faoina oibleagáidí idirnáisiúnta, tá ceangal ar an Aontas cloí go docht le forálacha Airteagal 2 ADA maidir le cinneadh an ghnáthluacha.
Therefore, the EU is bound by its international obligations to strictly adhere to the provisions of Article 2 ADA bearing on the determination of normal value.
#2078649
Thairis sin, ina bharúil ar an tionscnamh, líomhain Xiamen ar an gcéad dul síos nach bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) i gcomhréir le Comhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”).
Furthermore, in its comments on initiation, Xiamen, firstly alleged that Article 2(6a) is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’).
#2078664
Ar an dara dul síos, thug Xiamen ar aird nach bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán comhsheasmhach le hAirteagal 2.2.2 ADA.
Second, Xiamen submitted that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2.2.2 ADA.
#2078666
Dá bhrí sin, thug Xiamen ar aird go raibh Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le hAirteagal 2.2.2 ADA.
Xiamen therefore submitted that the Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was incompatible with Article 2.2.2 ADA.
#2141255
Go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le hAirteagal 2.2 agus 2.2.1.1 de Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála EDT (“ADA”) agus le dlí-eolaíocht EDT;
Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the Article 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) and the WTO jurisprudence;
#2141258
Go sonrach, maidir le comhoiriúnacht Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán le EDT, chuir na páirtithe in iúl nach ann do choincheap an tsaofa shuntasaigh sa ADA.
More specifically, with respect to WTO compatibility of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the parties pointed out that the notion of significant distortions does not exist in the ADA.
#2154708
Dá bhrí sin, bhí sé de cheangal ar an ngearánach na ceanglais in Airteagal 5.2 den ADA, a léirítear in Airteagal 5(2) den bhun-Rialachán, a chomhlíonadh.
Therefore, the complainant was bound to fulfil the requirements in Article 5.2 of the ADA, which is mirrored by Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation.
#2174346
Chuir Rialtas na Síne argóint isteach, sa chás seo, go ndearna an Coimisiún neamhaird dhíreach de thaifid onnmhaireoirí na Síne, a bhí ar neamhréir le hAirteagal 2.2.1.1 de ADA.
The GOC submitted that in this case, the Commission directly disregarded the records of the Chinese exporters, which was inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA.
#2179676
Shoiléirigh Chengxi Shipyard nach gceadaítear leis an modheolaíocht, a fhorordaítear le hAirteagal 2 ADA, faisnéis a úsáid seachas an fhaisnéis sa tír is onnmhaireoir chun an gnáthluach a shuí.
Chengxi Shipyard clarified that the methodology prescribed by Article 2 ADA does not permit the use of information other than that in the exporting country in order to establish the normal value.
#2181159
Go háirithe, ní thagann coincheap an “tsaofa shuntasaigh” faoi réim aon cheann de na catagóirí a dá bhforáiltear le hAirteagal 2.2 EDT ADA.
In particular, the concept of “significant distortions” does not fall within any of the categories provided by Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.
#2181232
ADA, mar aon leis na torthaí in DS473 agus DS494, tugadh aghaidh ar na hargóintí sin cheana in aithris (94) agus aithris (96) thuas.
ADA, as well as the findings in DS473 and DS494, these arguments were already addressed in recitals (94) and (96) above.
#2339431
ADA lena soláthraítear liosta uileghabhálach de chásanna inar féidir an gnáthluach a ríomh, ach gan ‘saobhadh suntasach’ a bheith liostaithe i measc na gcásanna sin.
Moreover, using data from an appropriate representative country is, according to the GOC, inconsistent with GATT Article 6.1(b) and Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA, which require using the cost of production in the country of origin when constructing normal value.
#2346101
D’athdhearbhaigh an Chomhairle a tuairim go bhfuil Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán ar neamhréir le ADA agus go bhfuil lochtanna fíorasacha agus dlíthiúla sa Tuarascáil.
The GOC reiterated its view that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with the ADA and that the Report has factual and legal defects.