text:
 |
 52011PC0390
 Proposta għal REGOLAMENT TAL-KUNSILL li jestendi d-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv impost mir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 91/2009 fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta’ ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw fir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina għall-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja, sew jekk iddikjarati li joriġinaw mill-Malasja u sew jekk le /* KUMM/2011/0390 finali - 2011/0171 (NLE) */
 MEMORANDUM TA’ SPJEGAZZJONI1. KUNTEST TAL-PROPOSTA |Raġunijiet għall-proposta u l-għanijiet tagħha Din il-proposta tikkonċerna l-applikazzjoni tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 1225/2009 tat-30 ta' Novembru 2009 dwar il-protezzjoni kontra l-importazzjonijiet li huma l-oġġett ta' dumping minn pajjiżi mhux membri tal-Komunità Ewropea (‘ir-Regolament bażiku’) fl-investigazzjoni dwar il-possibbiltà ta' ksur tal-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping imposti mir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 91/2009 fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina minn importazzjonijiet ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja. |Kuntest ġenerali Din il-proposta qed issir fil-kuntest tal-implimentazzjoni tar-Regolament bażiku u hija riżultat tal-investigazzjoni li twettqet skont ir-rekwiżiti sostantivi u proċedurali stipulati fir-Regolament bażiku u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 13 tiegħu. |Dispożizzjonijiet eżistenti fil-qasam tal-proposta Il-miżuri li bħalissa huma fis-seħħ ġew imposti mir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 91/2009 li jimponi dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv fuq importazzjonijiet ta’ ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina. |Konsistenza mal-politiki u l-għanijiet l-oħra tal-Unjoni Mhux applikabbli. |2. KONSULTAZZJONI MAL-PARTIJIET INTERESSATI U L-VALUTAZZJONI TAL-IMPATT |Konsultazzjoni mal-partijiet interessati |Il-partijiet interessati kkonċernati mill-proċedura kellhom il-possibbiltà li jiddefendu l-interessi tagħhom matul l-investigazzjoni, skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament bażiku. |Ġbir u użu ta' għarfien espert |Ma kienx hemm ħtieġa ta’ esperti esterni. |Valutazzjoni tal-impatt Din il-proposta hija r-riżultat tal-implimentazzjoni tar-Regolament bażiku. Ir-Regolament bażiku ma jipprevedix valutazzjoni tal-impatt ġenerali iżda jinkludi lista eżawrjenti ta’ kundizzjonijiet li jridu jiġu vvalutati. |3. L-ELEMENTI ġURIDIċI TAL-PROPOSTA |Taqsira tal-azzjoni proposta Fit-28 ta' Ottubru 2010, il-Kummissjoni, permezz tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 966/2010, fetħet investigazzjoni, ex officio, dwar il-possibbiltà ta' ksur tal-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping imposti mir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 91/2009 fuq importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ minn importazzjonijiet ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja, kemm jekk iddikjarati li oriġinaw mill-Malasja kif ukoll jekk le. L-investigazzjoni nfetħet minħabba li l-Kummissjoni kellha għad-dispożizzjoni tagħha evidenza prima facie li l-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping dwar l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar kienu qed jinkisru permezz tat-trasbord mill-Malasja. Il-proposta mehmuża għal Regolament tal-Kunsill hija bbażata fuq dak li ħareġ mill-investigazzjoni, li wassal għall-konferma li t-trasbord ta’ ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw miċ-Ċina qed jgħaddi mill-Malasja u li huma ssodisfati l-kriterji l-oħrajn kollha li jistabbilixxu każ ta' ksur kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku. Huwa għalhekk propost li l-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping fis-seħħ fuq ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ jkunu estiżi għall-importazzjonijiet tal-istess prodott ikkunsinjat mill-Malasja. Id-dazju jikkorrispondi mad-dazju għall-pajjiż kollu fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar mir-RPĊ (85%). Id-dazju għandu jiġi mħallas mid-data tal-ftuħ tal-investigazzjoni. Bosta mill-produtturi li kkoperaw fil-Malasja talbu li jiġu eżentati mill-possibbiltà ta' miżuri estiżi. Għall-kumpaniji li ma kkoperawx għalkollox jew li nstabu li qegħdin iħaddmu prassi li tmur kontra l-miżuri, ġie propost li dawn ma jiġux eżentati. Għall-kumpaniji li kkoperaw bis-sħiħ u nstabu li mhumiex qegħdin jgħawġu l-miżuri, ġie propost li jiġu eżentati. Ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill rilevanti għandu jiġi ppubblikat f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea mhux aktar tard mis-26 ta’ Lulju 2011. |Bażi legali Ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 1225/2009 tat-30 ta' Novembru 2009 dwar il-protezzjoni kontra l-importazzjonijiet li huma l-oġġett ta' dumping minn pajjiżi mhux membri tal-Komunità Ewropea, u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 13 tiegħu. |Il-prinċipju tas-sussidjarjetà Il-proposta taqa’ taħt il-kompetenza esklużiva tal-Unjoni. Għaldaqstant il-prinċipju tas-sussidjarjetà ma japplikax. |Il-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità Il-proposta tikkonforma mal-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità għar-raġunijiet li ġejjin: |Il-forma tal-azzjoni hija deskritta fir-Regolament bażiku msemmi hawn fuq u ma tħallix lok għal deċiżjoni nazzjonali. |Mhijiex applikabbli indikazzjoni ta' kif il-piż finanzjarju u amministrattiv li jaqa' fuq l-Unjoni, il-gvernijiet nazzjonali, l-awtoritajiet reġjonali u lokali, l-operaturi ekonomiċi u ċ-ċittadini, huwa minimizzat u proporzjonali għall-għan tal-proposta. |Għażla tal-istrumenti |L-istrumenti proposti: Regolament. |Mezzi oħra ma jkunux xierqa minħabba r-raġuni li ġejja: Ir-Regolament bażiku msemmi hawn fuq ma jistipulax għażliet alternattivi. |4. IMPLIKAZZJONI BAġITARJAIl-proposta ma għandha l-ebda implikazzjoni għall-baġit tal-Unjoni. |2011/0171 (NLE)Proposta għalREGOLAMENT TAL-KUNSILLli jestendi d-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv impost mir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 91/2009 fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta’ ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw fir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina għall-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja, sew jekk iddikjarati li joriġinaw mill-Malasja u sew jekk leIL-KUNSILL TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA,Wara li kkunsidra t-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea,Wara li kkunsidra r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 1225/2009 tat-30 ta’ Novembru 2009 dwar il-protezzjoni kontra l-importazzjonijiet li huma l-oġġett ta' dumping minn pajjiżi mhux membri tal-Komunità Ewropea[1] ("ir-Regolament bażiku"), u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 13 tiegħu,Wara li kkunsidra l-proposta mressqa mill-Kummissjoni Ewropea ("il-Kummissjoni") wara li ġie kkonsultat il-Kumitat Konsultattiv,Billi:1. PROĊEDURA2. Miżuri eżistenti3. Skont ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 91/2009[2] ("ir-Regolament oriġinali"), il-Kunsill impona dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv ta' 85% fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw fir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina ('ir-RPĊ' jew 'iċ-Ċina') għall-kumpaniji l-oħra kollha għajr dawk li jissemmew fl-Artikolu 1(2) u l-Anness 1 ta' dak ir-Regolament. Dawn il-miżuri minn issa 'l quddiem se jissejħu "il-miżuri fis-seħħ" u l-investigazzjoni li wasslet biex jiġu imposti l-miżuri mir-Regolament oriġinali minn issa 'l quddiem se tissejjaħ "l-investigazzjoni oriġinali".4. Il-bidu tal-investigazzjoni ex-officio5. Wara l-investigazzjoni oriġinali, il-Kummissjoni kellha evidenza li tindika li l-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw fir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina (il-prodott ikkonċernat) kienu qed jinkisru permezz tat-trasbord mill-Malasja.6. Minn evidenza prima facie li kellha l-Kummissjoni kien jidher li wara li ġew imposti l-miżuri fis-seħħ, xirfet bidla sinifikanti fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ li kienet tinvolvi l-esportazzjonijiet mir-RPĊ u mill-Malasja lejn l-Unjoni, u dan kien donnu riżultat tal-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri fis-seħħ. Biex jispjega din il-bidla, ma kienx jidher li hemm kawża jew ġustifikazzjoni oħra għajr l-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri fis-seħħ.7. Barra minn hekk, l-evidenza enfasizzat il-fatt li l-effetti rimedjali tal-miżuri fis-seħħ kienu qed jiddgħajfu kemm f'termini ta' kwantità kif ukoll ta’ prezz. L-evidenza wriet li dawn l-importazzjonijiet li żdiedu mill-Malasja kienu saru bi prezzijiet ’l isfel minn dak ta' mingħajr dannu stabbilit fl-investigazzjoni oriġinali.8. Fl-aħħar nett, kien hemm evidenza li tindika li l-prezzijiet ta’ ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja kienu ġew iddampjati b’rabta mal-valur normali stabbilit għall-prodott simili matul l-investigazzjoni oriġinali.9. Hekk kif stabbiliet, wara konsultazzjoni mal-Kumitat Konsultattiv, li kien hemm biżżejjed evidenza prima facie biex tinfetaħ investigazzjoni skont l-Artikolu 13 tar-Regolament bażiku, il-Kummissjoni, fuq bażi ex-officio , bdiet investigazzjoni skont ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 966/2010[3] ("ir-Regolament tal-ftuħ"). Skont l-Artikoli 13(3) u 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku, il-Kummissjoni, skont ir-Regolament tal-ftuħ ta' investigazzjoni, ordnat ukoll lill-awtoritajiet tad-dwana biex jiddokumentaw l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja.10. Investigazzjoni11. Il-Kummissjoni uffiċjalment avżat bil-ftuħ tal-investigazzjoni lill-awtoritajiet tar-RPĊ u tal-Malasja, lill-produtturi esportaturi u lin-negozjanti f'dawk il-pajjiżi, lill-importaturi fl-Unjoni magħrufin li huma kkonċernati u lill-industrija tal-Unjoni. Intbagħtu kwestjonarji lill-produtturi esportaturi fir-RPĊ u fil-Malasja li taf bihom il-Kummissjoni jew li kienu ressqu t-tagħrif dwarhom fiż-żmien stabbilit fil-premessa 19 tar-Regolament tal-ftuħ. Il-kwestjonarji ntbagħtu wkoll lill-importaturi fl-Unjoni. Il-partijiet interessati ngħataw l-opportunità li jressqu l-opinjonijiet tagħhom bil-miktub u li jitolbu smigħ fiż-żmien kif stipulat fir-Regolament tal-ftuħ.12. Dsatax-il produttur esportatur fil-Malasja, tliet gruppi ta' produtturi esportaturi fiċ-Ċina u tliet importaturi mhux relatati fl-Unjoni ressqu tagħrif dwarhom. Bosta kumpaniji oħra kkuntattjaw lill-Kummissjoni iżda stqarrew li mhumiex involuti fil-produzzjoni jew l-esportazzjoni tal-prodott li qed jiġi investigat.13. Il-kumpaniji li ġejjin wieġbu għall-mistoqsijiet tal-kwestjonarju u sussegwentement saru żjarat ta' verifika fl-istabbilimenti tagħhom, bl-eċċezzjoni ta' Menara Kerjaya Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, TR Formac Sdn. Bhd. u Excel Fastener Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd:Produtturi esportaturi fil-Malasja:- Sofasco Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- Tigges Fastener Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,- MCP Precision Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- HBS Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- TZ Fasteners (M) Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- Menara Kerjaya Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- Chin Well Fasteners Company Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- Acku Metal Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- Grand Fasteners Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- Jinfast Industries Sdn. Bhd, Penang,- Andfast Malaysia Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,- ATC Metal Industrial Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- Pertama Metal Industries Sdn. Bhd, Shah Alam,- Excel Fastener Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,- TI Metal Forgings Sdn. Bhd, Ipoh,- TR Formac (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- United Bolt and Nut Sdn. Bhd, Seremban,- Power Steel and Electro Plating Sdn. Bhd, Klang,- KKC Fastener Industry Sdn. Bhd, Melaka.- Il-perjodu ta’ investigazzjoni- Il-perjodu ta’ investigazzjoni kopra l-perjodu mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2008 sat-30 ta’ Settembru 2010 (“il-PI”). Id-dejta inġabret għall-PI sabiex tkun investigata, fost l-oħrajn, il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ. Għall-perjodu ta' bejn l-1 ta' Ottubru 2009 u t-30 ta' Settembru 2010 nġabret dejta aktar dettaljata sabiex tiġi eżaminata l-possibbiltà ta' dgħufija tal-effett rimedjali tal-miżuri fis-seħħ u l-preżenza ta' ddampjar.- IR-RIŻULTATI TAL-INVESTIGAZZJONI- Konsiderazzjonijiet ġenerali- Skont l-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku, il-valutazzjoni tal-eżistenza ta' ksur saret billi ġie analizzat b'mod suċċessiv jekk kienx hemm tibdil fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ ta' bejn dik tal-pajjiżi terzi u dik tal-Unjoni; jekk din il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ nibbtitx minn xi prassi, proċess jew ħidma li għalihom ma hemmx raġuni jew ġustifikazzjoni ekonomika suffiċjenti għajr l-impożizzjoni tad-dazju; jekk kienx hemm evidenza ta' dannu jew jekk l-effetti rimedjali tad-dazju ġewx kompromessi f'termini tal-prezzijiet u/jew tal-kwantitajiet tal-prodott simili; u jekk kienx hemm evidenza ta' ddampjar b'rabta mal-valuri normali stabbiliti qabel għall-prodotti simili, jekk neċessarju skont l-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament bażiku.- Il-PRODOTT IKKONĊERNAT U L-PRODOTT SIMILI- Il-prodott ikkonċernat huwa kif definit fl-investigazzjoni oriġinali: Ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid jew tal-azzar, għajr dawk tal-azzar li ma jissaddadx, jiġifieri. viti għall-injam (esklużi l-coach screws - viti b’ras eżagonali biex jiddawru bi spanner), viti li jaqbdu kamin waħedhom (self-tapping), viti u boltijiet oħrajn bir-ras (sew jekk bl-iskorfini u l-woxers tagħhom u sew jekk le, iżda huma esklużi l-viti mdawrin minn biċċiet, vireg, profili jew wajer, ta' qatgħa solida, bil-parti dritta mhux eħxen minn 6 mm, u esklużi l-viti u l-boltijiet biex jitwaħħal materjal tal-kostruzzjoni ta' linji tat-trenn), kif ukoll woxers, li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ, u li jaqgħu taħt il-kodiċijiet NM 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7318 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 u ex 7318 22 00.- Il-prodott li qed jiġi investigat huwa l-istess bħal dak definit fil-premessa preċedenti, iżda kkunsinjat mill-Malasja, sew jekk iddikjarat li joriġina mill-Malasja u sew jekk le.- L-investigazzjoni wriet li ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar, kif definiti hawn fuq, esportati lejn l-Unjoni mill-PRĊ u dawk ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja għall-Unjoni għandhom l-istess karatteristiċi bażiċi fiżiċi u tekniċi u l-istess użu, u għalhekk jitqiesu bħala prodotti simili fi ħdan it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 1(4) tar-Regolament bażiku.- Il-grad ta’ kooperazzjoni u determinazzjoni tal-volumi tal-kummerċ- Kif stabbilit fil-premessa (9), dsatax-il produttur esportatur fil-Malasja u tliet produtturi esportaturi fiċ-Ċina kkoperaw billi ressqu t-tweġibiet għall-kwestjonarju.Il-Malasja14. Wara li ressqet it-tweġibiet għall-kwestjonarju tagħha, kumpanija fil-Malasja nnotifikat lill-Kummissjoni li kienet waqqfet l-attività tagħha u għalhekk irtirat il-kooperazzjoni tagħha.15. Fil-każ ta' bosta kumpaniji oħra fil-Malasja, instab li l-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 18(1) tar-Regolament bażiku kienet ġustifikata għar-raġunijiet spjegati hawn isfel fil-premessi minn (32) sa (60).16. Fil-PI, il-produtturi esportaturi fil-Malasja li kkooperaw koprew 55 % tal-esportazzjonijiet totali fil-Malasja lejn l-Unjoni tal-prodott li qed jiġi investigat, kif irrappurtat fil-COMEXT. Il-volumi ġenerali ta' esportazzjoni kienu bbażati fuq il-COMEXT.Ir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina17. Kien hemm livell baxx ta' kooperazzjoni mill-produtturi/esportaturi fir-RPĊ: tlieta biss mill-esportaturi/produtturi wieġbu għall-kwestjonarju. Barra minn hekk, l-ebda waħda minn dawn il-kumpaniji ma esportat il-prodott ikkonċernat lejn l-Unjoni jew il-Malasja. Għalhekk, abbażi tal-informazzjoni mressqa mill-partijiet li kkoperaw, xejn ma seta' jiġi stabbilit b'mod ċar fir-rigward tal-volumi ta’ esportazzjoni tal-prodott ikkonċernat mir-RPĊ.18. Minħabba dan ta' hawn fuq, is-sejbiet fir-rigward tal-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar lejn l-Unjoni u l-esportazzjonijiet tal-prodott ikkonċernat mir-RPĊ lejn il-Malasja kellhom isiru parzjalment abbażi tal-fatti disponibbli skont l-Artikolu 18 tar-Regolament bażiku. Intużat id-dejta tal-COMEXT biex ikunu stabbiliti l-volumi ta' importazzjoni totali mir-RPĊ lejn l-Unjoni. L-istatistiċi nazzjonali Ċiniżi u dawk mill-Malasja ntużaw biex jiġu stabbiliti l-esportazzjonijiet globali lejn il-Malasja mir-RPĊ. Id-dejta kienet verifikata wkoll darb'oħra b'dejta dettaljata dwar l-importazzjoni u l-esportazzjoni li kienet fornuta mill-awtoritajiet doganali tal-Malasja.19. Il-volum ta' importazzjoni rreġistrat fl-istatistiċi tal-Malasja u taċ-Ċina kopra grupp ta' prodotti akbar mill-prodott ikkonċernat jew il-prodott li qed jiġi investigat. Madankollu, fid-dawl tad-dejta tal-COMEXT u tad-dejta verifikata dwar il-produtturi Ċiniżi u dawk tal-Malasja tal-prodotti għall-irbit, seta' jiġi stabbilit li parti sinifikanti minn dan il-volum tal-importazzjoni kopra l-prodott ikkonċernat. Għaldaqstant, din id-dejta setgħet tistabbilixxi kull bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ u setgħet tiġi verifikata għal darb'oħra ma' dejta oħra bħal dik ipprovduta mill-produtturi esportaturi u importaturi li kkooperaw.20. Il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċImportazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar lejn l-Unjoni21. L-importazzjonijiet tal-prodott ikkonċernat miċ-Ċina lejn l-Unjoni kienu ħadu daqqa kbira wara li ġew imposti l-miżuri oriġinali f'Jannar 2009.22. Mill-banda l-oħra, it-total tal-importazzjonijiet tal-prodott li qed jiġi investigat mill-Malasja lejn l-Unjoni żdiedu b'mod sinifikanti fl-2009 u l-2010. Kemm id-dejta tal-COMEXT u kemm dik tal-esportazzjoni pprovduta mill-kumpaniji li kkooperaw turi li l-esportazzjonijiet mill-Malasja lejn l-Unjoni żdiedu f'dawk is-snin filwaqt li fis-snin preċedenti kienu stabbli.23. It-Tabella 1 turi l-kwantitajiet ta’ importazzjoni ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar miċ-Ċina u mill-Malasja lejn l-Unjoni minħabba l-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri fl-2009:Tabella 1: L-evoluzzjoni tal-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar lejn l-Unjoni mill-impożizzjoni tal-miżuriIl-volum tal-importazzjoni f’tunnellati. | 2008 | 2009 | 1.10.2009-30.09.2010 |PRĊ | 432 049 | 64 609 | 27 000 |Sehem tal-importazzjonijiet totali | 82,2 % | 38,0 % | 15,4 % |il-Malasja | 8 791 | 31 050 | 89 000 |Sehem tal-importazzjonijiet totali | 1,7 % | 18,3 % | 50,9 % |Sors: COMEXT, statistika mill-Malasja, miċ-Ċina24. Id-dejta ta' hawn fuq turi li, mill-2009, l-esportaturi tal-Malasja għaddew lill-esportaturi Ċiniżi f'dak li hu bejgħ tal-prodott f'termini ta' volum— u sa ċertu punt anki ħadulhom posthom. Minn meta ġew imposti l-miżuri, it-tnaqqis fl-importazzjonijiet Ċiniżi lejn l-UE kien wieħed sinifikanti (94 %).L-esportazzjonijiet Ċiniżi lejn il-Malasja25. Żieda kbira fl-esportazzjonijiet tal-prodotti għall-irbit tista' tkun osservata wkoll fl-istess ħabta mir-RPĊ lejn il-Malasja: minn ammont relattivament żgħir fl-2008 (8 829 tunnellata) dawn żdiedu għal 89 471 tunnellata fil-PI.Tabella 2: Importazzjoni ta' prodotti għall-irbit miċ-Ċina lejn il-Malasja mill-20082008 | 2009 | 1.10.2009-30.09.2010 |Importazzjoni (MT) | 8 829 | 61 973 | 89 471 |Bidla annwali (%) | 600 % | 45 % |Indiċi (2008=100) | 100 | 700 | 1013 |Sors: Statistika mid-dwana tal-Malasja26. Biex tkun stabbilita t-tendenza tal-fluss tal-kummerċ ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar miċ-Ċina għall-Malasja, ġew ikkunsidrati kemm l-istatistiki tal-Malasja kif ukoll dawk Ċiniżi. Id-dejta minn dawn l-istatistiki, fiż-żewġ każijiet, hija disponibbli biss fuq livell ta’ grupp ta’ prodott ogħla mill-prodott ikkonċernat. Madankollu, fid-dawl tad-dejta tal-COMEXT u tad-dejta verifikata dwar il-produtturi tal-prodotti għall-irbit Ċiniżi u dawk tal-Malasja, ġie stabbilit li parti sinifikanti kopriet il-prodott ikkonċernat, hekk li din id-dejta minn dawn l-istatistiki setgħet tiġi kkunsidrata.Volum ta' produzzjoni fil-Malasja27. L-evoluzzjoni tal-volum ta’ produzzjoni totali tal-produtturi fil-Malasja li kkooperaw kienet baqgħet relattivament stabbli qabel l-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri fl-2009. Il-produtturi tal-Malasja, madankollu, minn dak iż-żmien żiedu l-produzzjoni tagħhom b'mod konsiderevoli.Tabella 3: Il-produzzjoni tal-prodott li qed jiġi investigat tal-kumpaniji fil-Malasja li kkooperaw2008 | 2009 | 1.10.2009-30.09.2010 |Il-volum ta' produzzjoni (MT) | 38 763 | 33 758 | 61 262 |Sors: Informazzjoni fornuta mill-produtturi li kkooperaw28. Konklużjoni dwar il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ29. It-tnaqqis globali tal-esportazzjonijiet Ċiniżi lejn l-Unjoni mill-2009 u ż-żieda parallela fl-esportazzjonijiet mill-Malasja u fl-esportazzjonijiet mir-RPĊ lejn il-Malasja wara l-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri oriġinali wasslu għal bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ bejn il-pajjiżi msemmija hawn, minn naħa waħda, u l-Unjoni min-naħa l-oħra.30. In-natura tal-prassi ta’ ksur il-miżuri31. L-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku jirrikjedi li l-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ tinbet minn prassi, proċess jew ħidma li għalihom ma hemmx raġuni jew ġustifikazzjoni ekonomika suffiċjenti għajr l-impożizzjoni tad-dazju. Il-prassi, proċess jew ħidma jinkludu, fost l-oħrajn, il-kunsinna tal-prodott suġġett għall-miżuri permezz ta’ pajjiżi terzi u l-immuntar ta’ partijiet permezz ta’ operazzjoni ta’ mmuntar fl-Unjoni jew f’pajjiż terz. Għal dan l-għan ġiet stabbilita l-eżistenza ta’ operazzjonijiet ta’ mmuntar skont l-Artikolu 13(2) tar-Regolament bażiku.It-trasbord32. L-investigazzjoni żvelat ukoll li xi importaturi fl-Unjoni kienu ġabu prodotti għall-irbit ta’ oriġini Ċiniża minn esportaturi Malasjani li ma kinux ikkoperaw fl-investigazzjoni preżenti. Din l-informazzjoni kienet verifikata għal darb'oħra ma’ bażijiet ta’ dejta kummerċjali tal-Malasja li wrew li tal-anqas uħud mill-prodotti għall-irbit esportati minn dawn il-kumpaniji li ma kkoperawx kienu, fil-verità, ġew prodotti fir-RPĊ.33. Barra minn dan, kif stabbilit b'mod dettaljat fil-premessi minn (52) sa (58) hawn taħt, kien instab li għadd ta' produtturi mill-Malasja li kkooperaw kienu għaddew informazzjoni mhux ċara, b'mod partikolari dwar ir-rabta mal-manifatturi Ċiniżi, l-importazzjonijiet ta' prodotti lesti miċ-Ċina u l-oriġini ta' esportazzjonijiet tal-prodott li qed jiġi investigat lejn l-Unjoni. Instab li wħud minnhom kienu jesportaw ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ta' oriġini Ċiniża lejn l-Unjoni. Dan huwa wkoll ikkonfermat mis-sejbiet dwar il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ kif deskritt hawn fuq fil-premessa (29).34. Fl-2009, l-Uffiċċju Ewropew Kontra l-Frodi (l-OLAF) beda investigazzjoni dwar l-allegat trasbord tal-istess prodott mill-Malasja. Barra minn hekk, mill-investigazzjoni ħareġ li l-awtoritajiet tal-Malasja wettqu investigazzjonijiet dwar prassi li allegatament kienu qed jiksru l-miżuri fl-istess żmien u kkonkludew li diversi kumpaniji, prinċipalment negozjanti, kkommettew frodi billi ffalsifikaw l-oriġini ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar impurtati mir-RPĊ lejn il-Malasja meta esportaw il-prodott mill-ġdid.35. L-eżistenza ta' trasbord ta' prodotti ta' oriġini Ċiniża mill-Malasja, għaldaqstant, kienet ikkonfermata.Operazzjonijiet ta' mmuntar u/jew ta' tlestija36. Waħda mill-kumpaniji spezzjonati ma kinitx qed timmanifattura prodotti għall-irbit minn materja prima (jiġifieri azzar imgerbeb) imma kienet qed tipproduċihom minn semi-finished blanks (jiġifieri minn azzar imgerbeb li jinqata' biċċiet li mbagħad jitgħattnu minn fuq, imma ma jkunux għadhom ngħataw il-kamin, ġew trattati bis-sħana jew miksija). Madankollu, tul il-PI din il-kumpanija ma esportatx. Kumpanija oħra nstabet li kienet qed timmanifattura prodotti għall-irbit primarjament mill-azzar imgerbeb, imma anki xi ftit minn semi-finished blanks. Għal din il-kumpanija, kien stabbilit li ma kien qed isir ebda ksur fid-dawl tad-dispożizzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 13(2) tar-Regolament bażiku, kif stabbilit f'aktar dettall fil-premessi (62) u (63) hawn taħt.37. Nuqqas ta’ raġuni jew ġustifikazzjoni ekonomika suffiċjenti għajr l-impożizzjoni tad-dazju b'rabta mal-anti-dumping38. L-investigazzjoni ma ħarġet għad-dawl l-ebda raġuni adegwata jew ġustifikazzjoni ekonomika oħra għat-trasbord ħlief l-evitar tad-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping fis-seħħ fuq ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ. Ma nstab ebda element, għajr id-dazju, li seta' jitqies bħala kumpens għall-ispejjeż tat-trasbord, partikolarment dwar it-trasport u t-tagħbija mill-ġdid tal-prodott ikkonċernat mir-RPĊ mill-Malasja.39. It-telfien ta' saħħet l-effett ta' rimedju mid-dazju anti-dumping40. Biex jiġi stmat jekk il-prodotti importati, f'termini ta' kwantitajiet u prezzijiet, dgħajfux l-effetti rimedjali tal-miżuri fis-seħħ fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar mir-RPĊ, kienet użata d-dejta verifikata mill-produtturi esportaturi li kkooperaw u dik tal-COMEXT minħabba li tqiesu bħala l-aqwa dejta disponibbli dwar il-kwantitajiet u l-prezzijiet ta’ esportazzjonijiet minn kumpaniji li ma kkooperawx. Il-prezzijiet kif stabbiliti ġew imqabbla mal-livell ta’ eliminazzjoni ta’ dannu stabbilit għal produtturi tal-Unjoni fil-premessa (226) tar-Regolament oriġinali.41. Iż-żieda tal-importazzjonijiet mill-Malasja tqieset sinifikanti f’termini ta’ kwantitajiet. Il-konsum stmat tal-Unjoni fil-PI jagħti indikazzjoni simili dwar il-volum sinifikanti ta' dawn l-importazzjonijiet. Il-paragun tal-livell ta' eliminazzjoni tad-dannu kif stabbilit fir-Regolament oriġinali u l-prezz medju peżat ta' esportazzjoni wera ddampjar sinifikanti. Għaldaqstant ġie konkluż li l-effetti rimedjali tal-miżuri fis-seħħ kienu qed jiddgħajfu kemm f'termini ta' kwantità kif ukoll ta’ prezz.42. Evidenza ta' ddampjar43. Fl-aħħarnett, skont l-Artikolu 13(1) u (2) tar-Regolament bażiku, ġie eżaminat jekk kienx hemm evidenza ta’ ddampjar b’rabta mal-valur normali stabbilit qabel għall-prodotti simili.44. Fir-Regolament oriġinali, il-valur normali ġie stabbilit abbażi tal-prezzijiet fl-Indja, li fl-investigazzjoni nstab li kien pajjiż analogu b’ekonomija tas-suq adegwata għar-RPĊ. Kien tqies f'loku li jintuża l-valur normali kif stabbilit qabel skont l-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku.45. Parti sinifikanti mill-esportazzjonijiet mill-Malasja kienet koperta minn esportaturi li ma kkooperawx jew minn esportaturi li kkooperaw li kienu fornew informazzjoni mhux ċara. Għal din ir-raġuni, biex setgħu jiġu stabbiliti l-prezzijiet tal-esportazzjoni mill-Malasja, kien deċiż li dawn jiġu bbażati fuq il-fatti disponibbli, jiġifieri fuq il-prezz medju ta' esportazzjoni ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar tul il-PI kif rappurtat fil-COMEXT.46. Biex jiġi żgurat tqabbil ġust bejn il-valur normali u l-prezz ta’ esportazzjoni, saret konċessjoni xierqa fil-forma ta’ aġġustamenti għad-differenzi li jaffettwaw il-prezzijiet u l-komparabilità tal-prezzijiet skont l-Artikolu 2(10) tar-Regolament bażiku. Għaldaqstant, saru aġġustamenti għad-differenzi fit-taxxi indiretti, fit-trasport u fl-ispejjeż ta’ assigurazzjoni bbażati fuq l-ispejjeż medji tal-produtturi/esportaturi fil-Malasja li kkoperaw fil-PI.47. Skont l-Artikoli 2(11) u 2(12) tar-Regolament bażiku, id-dumping ġie kkalkolat permezz ta’ tqabbil bejn il-medja peżata tal-valur normali kif stabbilit fir-Regolament oriġinali u l-prezzijiet medji peżati ta' esportazzjoni matul il-PI ta’ din l-investigazzjoni, espress bħala perċentwali tal-prezz CIF f'dazju mhux imħallas tal-fruntiera tal-Komunità.48. Il-paragun tal-valur normali medju peżat u l-prezzijiet medji peżati ta’ esportazzjoni kif stabbiliti wera d-dumping.49. MIŻURI50. Minħabba dan ta' hawn fuq, ġie konkluż li d-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv impost fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ kien evitat permezz tat-trasbord mill-Malasja skont l-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku.51. Skont l-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament bażiku, il-miżuri fis-seħħ fuq l-importazzjonijiet tal-prodott ikkonċernat li joriġinaw mir-RPĊ għandhom jiġu estiżi għall-importazzjonijiet tal-istess prodott ikkunsinjat mill-Malasja, sew jekk iddikjarat li joriġina mill-Malasja u sew jekk le.52. B'mod partikolari, fid-dawl tal-livell baxx ta' kooperazzjoni mill-produtturi esportaturi Ċiniżi, il-miżura li se tiġi estiża għandha tkun dik stabbilita fl-Artikolu 1(2) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 91/2009 għall-"kumpaniji l-oħra kollha", li hija dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv ta’ 85 % applikabbli għall-prezz nett, ħieles mal-fruntiera tal-Unjoni, qabel id-dazju.53. Skont l-Artikoli 13(3) u 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku, li jistipulaw li kull miżura estiża għandha tapplika għall-importazzjonijiet li daħlu fl-Unjoni skont ir-reġistrazzjoni imposta mir-Regolament tal-ftuħ, għandhom jinġabru d-dazji fuq dawk l-importazzjonijiet irreġistrati ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja.54. TALBIET GĦALL-EŻENZJONI55. Id-19-il kumpanija li kkooperaw fil-Malasja billi wieġbu għall-kwestjonarju talbu eżenzjoni mill-possibbiltà ta' miżuri estiżi skont l-Artikolu 13(4) tar-Regolament bażiku.56. Kif spjegat fil-premessa (16), waħda minn dawn il-kumpaniji sussegwentement waqfet milli tikkoopera u rtirat it-talba tagħha għal eżenzjoni.57. Żewġ kumpaniji nstabu li ma kinux qed jesportaw il-prodott tul il-PI u ma seta' jiġi konkluż xejn dwar in-natura tal-operazzjonijiet tagħhom. Għalhekk, f'dan l-istadju ma tistax tingħata eżenzjoni lil dawn iż-żewġ kumpaniji. Madankollu, jekk jidher, wara l-estensjoni tal-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping fis-seħħ, li l-kundizzjonijiet fl-Artikolu 11(4) u 13(4) tar-Regolament bażiku huma sodisfatti, iż-żewġ kumpaniji jistgħu jitolbu li s-sitwazzjoni tagħhom tiġi riveduta.58. Waħda mill-kumpaniji staqsiet, ladarba ma kinitx intalbet mill-industrija tal-Unjoni biex tiġi reġistrata, jekk it-tieni sentenza tal-Artikolu 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku kinitx ġiet rispettata meta fir-Regolament tal-ftuħ intalbet ir-reġistrazzjoni tal-importazzjonijiet. Madankollu, din kienet investigazzjoni kontra l-ksur tal-miżuri miftuħa mill-Kummissjoni ex officio abbażi tal-Artikolu 13(3) flimkien mal-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku. It-tieni sentenza tal-Artikolu 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku għaldaqstant mhux rilevanti għal dan il-każ. Kull interpretazzjoni oħra tneħħi l- effett utile tal-fatt li l-Artikolu 13(3) tar-Regolament bażiku jistipula li l-Kummissjoni tista' tinvestiga, ex officio , il-possibbiltà ta' ksur tal-miżuri.59. L-istess kumpanija allegat ukoll li l-konsultazzjoni mal-Kumitat Konsultattiv, kif stabbilit fl-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku, ma kinitx seħħet. Madankollu, skont l-Artikoli 13(3) u 14(5) tar-Regolament bażiku, il-ftuħ tal-investigazzjoni kien instigat mill-Kummissjoni wara konsultazzjoni mal-Kumitat Konsultattiv, anki jekk dan ma kienx issemma espliċitament fir-Regolament tal-ftuħ.60. Seba' kumpaniji nstabu li kienu fornew informazzjoni falza jew mhux ċara. Skont l-Artikolu 18(4) tar-Regolament bażiku, dawn il-kumpaniji kienu infurmati bl-intenzjoni li l-informazzjoni mressqa minnhom kienet se tiġi injorata u ngħataw skadenza ta’ żmien sabiex jipprovdu spjegazzjonijiet ulterjuri.61. L-ispjegazzjonijiet ulterjuri li waslu minn dawn il-kumpaniji ma kinux tali li jibdlu l-konklużjoni li dawn il-kumpaniji fixklu l-investigazzjoni. Għaldaqstant, skont l-Artikolu 18(1) tar-Regolament bażiku, il-konklużjonjiet rigward dawn il-kumpaniji kienu abbażi tal-fatti disponibbli.62. Tnejn minn dawn is-seba' kumpaniji nstabu li kienu għattew xi importazzjonijiet ta' prodotti lesti mir-RPĊ. Waħda minn dawn il-kumpaniji kienet anki ffalsifikat xi fatturi. Kumpanija oħra fil-Malasja li timmanifattura u tesporta l-prodotti għall-irbit u li talbet li tiġi eżentata dehret li kienet relatata ma' dil-kumpanija.63. Żewġ kumpaniji oħra nstabu li kienu ħbew ir-relazzjoni ma' manifattur Ċiniż ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar.64. Finalment, żewġ kumpaniji oħra nstabu li kienu ħbew ir-relazzjoni ta' bejniethom, b'mod li ma kellhomx il-kapaċità produttiva ta' dak li jesportaw u fixklu l-investigazzjoni billi ma pprovdewx l-informazzjoni neċessarja.65. Fid-dawl ta' dak li rriżulta mill-investigazzjonijiet dwar il-bidla fit-tendenza tal-kummerċ u fil-prassi tat-trasbord, kif stabbilit fil-premessi minn (22) sa (34) hawn fuq, u filwaqt li titqies in-natura tal-informazzjoni mhix ċara kif stabbilit fil-premessi minn (56) sa (58) hawn fuq, l-eżenzjonijiet mitluba minn dawn is-seba' kumpaniji, skont l-Artikolu 13(4) tar-Regolament bażiku, ma setgħux jingħataw.66. Kumpanija waħda ma setgħetx tagħti evidenza ta' faċilità ta' produzzjoni tal-prodotti għall-irbit u rrifjutat l-aċċess għall-kotba tagħha. Barra minn dan, instabet evidenza ta' bidla fil-prassi tat-trasbord waqt il-PI. Għalhekk, skont l-Artikolu 13(4) tar-Regolament bażiku, l-eżenzjoni ma tistax tingħata.67. It-tmien produtturi esportaturi tal-Malasja li fadal nstabu li ma kinux involuti fi prassijiet ta' ksur ta' miżuri u għaldaqstant l-eżenzjonijiet jistgħu jingħatawlhom.68. Waħda minn dawn it-tmien kumpaniji twaqqfet wara l-impożizzjoni tal-miżuri fis-seħħ mill-kumpanija omm Ċiniża tagħha, li hija suġġetta għal dawn il-miżuri. Il-kumpanija omm Ċiniża tagħha gradwalment ittrasferiet parti mill-makkinarju tagħha fil-Malasja bl-għan li sservi s-suq tal-UE mill-Malasja. Fil-fażi tal-bidu tagħha, il-kumpanija ipproduċiet xi prodotti għall-irbit minn prodotti nofshom kompluti li ġew ttrasbordati mill-kumpanija omm Ċiniża tagħha biex jitlestew kompletament. Fi stadju aktar tard, imma xorta fi żmien il-PI, meta kompla jiġi ttrasferit aktar makkinarju, il-prodotti għall-irbit kienu prodotti primarjament mill-materja prima fl-għamla ta' azzar imgerbeb, li kienu wkoll trasbordati mill-kumpanija omm Ċiniża.69. Inizjalment kien tqies li din il-kumpanija kellha tiġi rrifjutata eżenzjoni. Madankollu, fid-dawl tal-kummenti li waslu wara l-iżvelar, b'mod partikolari dwar il-valur miżjud lill-prodott fil-Malasja, kien konkluż li l-kumpanija ma kinitx involuta fi prassi li tikser il-miżuri. Għalhekk, tista' tingħata eżenzjoni lil din il-kumpanija.70. Kumpanija oħra minn dawn it-tmienja hija wkoll marbuta ma' kumpanija fir-RPĊ li hi suġġetta għall-miżuri oriġinali. Iżda din il-kumpanija fil-Malasja kienet stabbilita fl-1998 mis-sidien tagħha fit-Taiwan li s-sussidjarja tagħha fir-RPĊ waqqfuha biss fi stadju aktar tard, għalkemm xorta qabel ma daħlu fis-seħħ il-miżuri kontra r-RPĊ. Ma hemm l-ebda evidenza li tali relazzjoni ġiet stabbilita jew użata b'mod li nkisru l-miżuri fis-seħħ fuq l-importazzjonijiet li joriġinaw fir-RPĊ fil-kuntest tal-Artikolu 13(4) tar-Regolament bażiku.71. Huwa meqjus li huma meħtieġa miżuri speċjali f'dan il-każ sabiex jiżguraw l-applikazzjoni korretta ta' dawn l-eżenzjonijiet. Dawn il-miżuri speċjali huma r-rekwiżit li lill-awtoritajiet doganali tal-Istati Membri tkunilhom ippreżentata fattura kummerċjali valida, li għandha tkun konformi mar-rekwiżiti stipulati fl-Anness għal dan ir-Regolament. L-importazzjonijiet li ma jkunux akkumpanjati b'tali fattura għandhom ikunu suġġetti għad-dazju estiż b'rabta mal-anti-dumping.72. Produtturi oħra li ma fornewx tagħrif dwarhom f'dan il-proċediment u li ma esportawx il-prodott li qed jiġi investigat tul il-PI, u li beħsiebhom iressqu talba għal eżenzjoni mid-dazju estiż b'rabta mal-anti-dumping skont l-Artikoli 11(4) u 13 (4) tar-Regolament bażiku se jkunu mitluba jimlew kwestjonarju sabiex jippermettu lill-Kummissjoni tivvaluta din it-talba. Il-Kummissjoni normalment tagħmel ukoll żjara ta’ verifika fil-post. Kemm-il darba jiġu ssodisfati l-kundizzjonijiet stipulati fl-Artikoli 11(4) u 13 (4) tar-Regolament bażiku, l-eżenzjoni tista' tingħata.73. Fejn eżenzjoni hi ġustifikata, il-Kummissjoni, wara konsultazzjoni mal-Kumitat Konsultattiv, konsegwentement tipproponi l-emenda ta’ dan ir-Regolament. Sussegwentement, kull eżenzjoni mogħtija tkun monitorjata biex tkun assigurata l-osservanza tal-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti fiha.74. ŻVELAR75. Il-partijiet kollha interessati ġew mgħarrfa bil-fatti essenzjali u l-kunsiderazzjonijiet li wasslu għall-konklużjonijiet imsemmija u ġew mistiedna jagħmlu l-kummenti. Kienu kkunsidrati l-kummenti orali u miktuba li tressqu. Bl-eċċezzjoni tal-kummenti li waslu mingħand kumpanija kif stabbilit fil-premessi (62) u (63) hawn fuq, ebda wieħed mill-argumenti mressqa ma wassal għal modifika f'dak li ħareġ b'mod definittiv mill-investigazzjonijiet,ADOTTA DAN IR-REGOLAMENT:Artikolu 11. Id-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping definittiv applikabbli għall-"kumpaniji l-oħra kollha" impost mill-Artikolu 1(2) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 91/2009 fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti qfieli [prodotti għall-irbit] tal-ħadid u tal-azzar li joriġinaw mir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina, jiġifieri viti għall-injam (esklużi l-coach screws - viti b’ras eżagonali biex jiddawru bi spanner), viti li jaqbdu kamin waħedhom (self-tapping), viti u boltijiet oħrajn bir-ras (sew jekk bl-iskorfini u l-woxers tagħhom u sew jekk le, iżda huma esklużi l-viti mdawrin minn biċċiet, vireg, profili jew wajer, ta' qatgħa solida, bil-parti dritta mhux eħxen minn 6 mm, u esklużi l-viti u l-boltijiet biex jitwaħħal materjal tal-kostruzzjoni ta' linji tat-trenn), kif ukoll woxers, li joriġinaw mir-Repubblika Popolari taċ-Ċina, hu b'dan estiż għall-importazzjonijiet ta' ċerti prodotti għall-irbit tal-ħadid u tal-azzar, ħlief dawk tal-azzar li ma jissaddadx, jiġifieri viti għall-injam (esklużi l-coach screws - viti b’ras eżagonali biex jiddawru bi spanner), viti li jaqbdu kamin waħedhom (self-tapping), viti u boltijiet oħrajn bir-ras (sew jekk bl-iskorfini u l-woxers tagħhom u sew jekk le, iżda huma esklużi l-viti mdawrin minn biċċiet, vireg, profili jew wajer, ta' qatgħa solida, bil-parti dritta mhux eħxen minn 6 mm, u esklużi l-viti u l-boltijiet biex jitwaħħal materjal tal-kostruzzjoni ta' linji tat-trenn), kif ukoll woxers, ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja sew jekk iddikjarati li joriġinaw mill-Malasja u sew jekk le, li attwalment jaqgħu taħt il-kodiċi NM ex 7318 12 90, ex 7318 14 91, ex 7318 14 99, ex 7318 15 59, ex 7318 15 69, ex 7318 15 81, ex 7318 15 89, ex 7318 15 90, ex 7318 21 00 u ex 7318 22 00 (kodiċi TARIC 7318 12 90 11, 7318 12 90 91, 7318 14 91 11, 7318 14 91 91, 7318 14 99 11, 7318 14 99 91, 7318 15 59 11, 7318 15 59 61, 7318 15 59 81, 7318 15 69 11, 7318 15 69 61, 7318 15 69 81, 7318 15 81 11, 7318 15 81 61, 7318 15 81 81, 7318 15 89 11, 7318 15 89 61, 7318 15 89 81, 7318 15 90 21, 7318, 15 90 71, 7318 15 90 91, 7318 21 00 31, 7318 21 00 95, 7318 22 00 31 u 7318 22 00 95), bl-eċċezzjoni ta' dawk prodotti mill-kumpaniji elenkati hawn taħt:Kumpanija | Kodiċi addizzjonali TARIC |Acku Metal Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd | B123 |Chin Well Fasteners Company Sdn. Bhd | B124 |Jinfast Industries Sdn. Bhd | B125 |Power Steel and Electroplating Sdn. Bhd | B126 |Sofasco Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd | B127 |Tigges Fastener Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd | B128 |TI Metal Forgings Sdn. Bhd | B129 |United Bolt and Nut Sdn. Bhd | B130 |2. L-applikazzjoni ta' eżenzjonijiet mogħtija lill-kumpaniji speċifikament imsemmija f'paragrafu 1 ta' dan l-Artikolu jew awtorizzati mill-Kummissjoni skont l-Artikolu 2(2) għandha tkun soġġetta għal preżentazzjoni lill-awtoritajiet tad-dwana tal-Istati Membri ta' fattura kummerċjali valida, li għandha tkun konformi mar-rekwiżiti stipulati fl-Anness. Jekk din il-fattura ma tiġix ippreżentata, għandu jiġi applikat id-dazju marbut mal-anti-dumping kif impost mill-paragrafu 1 ta' dan l-Artikolu.3. Id-dazju estiż mill-paragrafu 1 ta' dan l-Artikolu għandu jinġabar fuq l-importazzjonijiet ikkunsinjati mill-Malasja, sew jekk iddikjarati li joriġinaw mill-Malasja u sew jekk le, irreġistrati skont l-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 966/2010 u l-Artikoli 13(3) u 14(5) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 1225/2009, bl-eċċezzjoni ta' dawk il-kumpaniji elenkati fil-paragrafu 1.4. Sakemm mhux speċifikat mod ieħor, għandhom japplikaw id-dispożizzjonijiet fis-seħħ li jikkonċernaw id-dazji tad-dwana.Artikolu 21. It-talbiet għall-eżenzjoni mid-dazju estiż skont l-Artikolu 1 għandhom isiru bil-miktub f'waħda mil-lingwi uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea u jridu jkunu ffirmati minn persuna awtorizzata li tirrappreżenta l-entità li qed titlob l-eżenzjoni. It-talba trid tintbagħat fl-indirizz li ġej:European ComissionDirectorate-General for TradeDirectorate HOffice: N-105 04/921049 BrussellIl-BelġjuFax (32 2) 295 65 05.2. Skont l-Artikolu 13(4) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 1225/2009, il-Kummissjoni tista’, wara li tikkonsulta mal-Kumitat Konsultattiv, tawtorizza b’deċiżjoni l-eżenzjoni ta' importazzjonijiet minn kumpaniji li ma evitawx il-miżuri b'rabta mal-anti-dumping imposti mir-Regolament (KE) Nru 91/2009, mid-dazju estiż skont l-Artikolu 1.Artikolu 3L-awtoritajiet tad-dwana huma b’dan ordnati li jtemmu r-reġistrazzjoni tal-importazzjonijiet stabbilita skont l-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 966/2010.Artikolu 4Dan ir-Regolament għandu jidħol fis-seħħ l-għada tal-pubblikazzjoni tiegħu f'Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea .Dan ir-Regolament għandu jorbot fl-intier tiegħu u japplika direttament fl-Istati Membri kollha.Magħmul fi Brussell,Għall-KunsillIl-PresidentAnnessFuq il-fattura kummerċjali valida u msemmija fl-Artikolu 1(2), għandha tidher dikjarazzjoni ffirmata minn uffiċjal tal-entità li toħroġ il-fattura kummerċjali, fil-format li ġej:76. L-isem u l-kariga tal-uffiċjal tal-entità li qed toħroġ il-fattura kummerċjali.77. Id-dikjarazzjoni li ġejja: "Jiena, hawn taħt iffirmat, niċċertifika li l-(volum) ta' (prodott ikkonċernat) mibjugħ għall-esportazzjoni lejn l-Unjoni Ewropea kopert minn din il-fattura, kien immanifatturat minn (isem u indirizz tal-kumpanija) (kodiċi addizzjonali TARIC) fi (pajjiż ikkonċernat). Niddikjara li t-tagħrif mogħti f’din il-fattura huwa sħiħ u korrett."78. Data u firma[1] ĠU L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.[2] ĠU L 29, 31.1.2009, p. 1.[3] ĠU L 282, 28.10.2010, p. 29.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 31.10.2013
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 291/49
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 85/2013
 z dne 3. maja 2013
 o spremembi Priloge XI (Elektronske komunikacije, avdiovizualne storitve in informacijska družba) k Sporazumu EGP
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredbo (ES) št. 733/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. aprila 2002 o izvajanju domene .eu najvišje ravni (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 874/2004 z dne 28. aprila 2004 o pravilih javnega reda v zvezi z izvajanjem in funkcijami domene .eu najvišje ravni ter načelih, ki urejajo registracijo (2), je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (3)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1654/2005 z dne 10. oktobra 2005 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 874/2004 o pravilih javnega reda v zvezi z izvajanjem in funkcijami domene .eu najvišje ravni ter načelih, ki urejajo registracijo (3), je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (4)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1255/2007 z dne 25. oktobra 2007 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 874/2004 o pravilih javnega reda v zvezi z izvajanjem in funkcijami domene .eu najvišje ravni ter načelih, ki urejajo registracijo (4), je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (5)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 560/2009 z dne 26. junija 2009 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 874/2004 o pravilih javnega reda v zvezi z izvajanjem in funkcijami domene .eu najvišje ravni ter načelih, ki urejajo registracijo (5), kakor je bila popravljena z UL L 291, 7.11.2009, str. 42, in UL L 80, 20.3.2012, str. 39, je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (6)
 Odločbo Komisije 2003/375/ES z dne 21. maja 2003 o imenovanju za register domene .eu najvišje ravni (6) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (7)
 Prilogo XI k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 Za točko 5o (črtano) Priloge XI k Sporazumu EGP se vstavi naslednje besedilo:
 „5oa.
 32002 R 0733: Uredba (ES) št. 733/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. aprila 2002 o izvajanju domene .eu najvišje ravni (UL L 113, 30.4.2002, str. 1).
 5oaa.
 32003 D 0375: Odločba Komisije 2003/375/ES z dne 21. maja 2003 o imenovanju za register domene .eu najvišje ravni (UL L 128, 24.5.2003, str. 29).
 5oab.
 32004 R 0874: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 874/2004 z dne 28. aprila 2004 o pravilih javnega reda v zvezi z izvajanjem in funkcijami domene .eu najvišje ravni ter načelih, ki urejajo registracijo (UL L 162, 30.4.2004, str. 40), kakor jo spreminja:
 —
 32005 R 1654: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1654/2005 z dne 10. oktobra 2005 (UL L 266, 11.10.2005, str. 35),
 —
 32007 R 1255: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1255/2007 z dne 25. oktobra 2007 (UL L 282, 26.10.2007, str. 16),
 —
 32009 R 0560: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 560/2009 z dne 26. junija 2009 (UL L 166, 27.6.2009, str. 3), kakor je bila popravljena z UL L 291, 7.11.2009, str. 42, in UL L 80, 20.3.2012, str. 39.
 V tem sporazumu EGP veljajo določbe Uredbe v skladu z naslednjo prilagoditvijo:
 seznam imen, ki jih lahko rezervirajo Islandija, Lihtenštajn in Norveška, kakor je določeno v točki 2 Priloge, se razume kot seznam imen, ki jih lahko registrirajo Islandija, Lihtenštajn in Norveška v točki 1 Priloge.“
 Člen 2
 Besedila uredb (ES) št. 733/2002, (ES) št. 874/2004, (ES) št. 1654/2005, (ES) št. 1255/2007, (ES) št. 560/2009 ter Odločbe 2003/375/ES v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavijo v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, so verodostojna.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 4. maja 2013 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (7).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 3. maja 2013
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) UL L 113, 30.4.2002, str. 1.
 (2) UL L 162, 30.4.2004, str. 40.
 (3) UL L 266, 11.10.2005, str. 35.
 (4) UL L 282, 26.10.2007, str. 16.
 (5) UL L 166, 27.6.2009, str. 3.
 (6) UL L 128, 24.5.2003, str. 29.
 (7) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 245 Md. 213 (1967)
 225 A.2d 470
 MERIT MUSIC SERVICE, INC.
 v.
 SONNEBORN, ET UX., ETC.
 [No. 518, September Term, 1965.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided January 17, 1967.
 The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES and FINAN, JJ.
 R. Lewis Bainder for appellant.
 Morton L. Goldner, with whom was Ellis Peregoff on the brief, for appellees.
 FINAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 *215 Appellant, Merit Music Service, Inc., is a Maryland corporation engaged in the business of leasing coin-operated vending and amusement machines in various locations in and around Baltimore City. Appellees, Sidney Sonneborn and Jennie Sonneborn, his wife, own and operate a tavern located on South Monroe Street in Baltimore and trade as Jen's Park Inn, hereinafter referred to as Jen's, at that location. Prior to August, 1962, appellees operated a similar business on Ridgely Street in Baltimore, which was closed during the latter part of July, 1962, due to urban renewal. For approximately five months appellees tried to find another location for their business and in November, 1962, the appellees were informed by a real estate agency that Jen's was for sale. In order to consummate the purchase of the new tavern, appellees approached the appellant for a loan of $1,500. Appellant had supplied amusement machines to appellees for a number of years at their former place of business and appellees owed appellant over $5,000 from their previous dealings.
 Settlement for the purchase of the tavern took place on the evening of November 16, 1962, at Jen's. Present when settlement talks began were the seller, the appellees, Julius W. Lichter, appellees' attorney, and Lee Fine, a real estate agent for the seller. Shortly after settlement began Mr. Morris Silverberg, president of appellant, arrived. After discussions, which lasted almost half an hour, Silverberg agreed to loan appellees $1,500 provided that security was given for the loan; this much is not disputed. However the testimony is contradictory as regards the security discussed by the parties at the settlement. Mr. Lichter, appellees' attorney, testified that Silverberg requested that the appellees' prior indebtedness as well as the $1,500 loan be secured by the liquor license formerly located at appellees' previous place of business and that this was the only security agreement discussed or executed by the parties in his presence. Mr. Fine, the real estate agent and who is also an attorney, testified that in addition to the assignment of the liquor license Silverberg wanted additional security by way of a minimum guarantee from machines he was going to install in Jen's and that he believed appellees' attorney was present during this discussion. He further testified that he was not present when *216 the contract embodying the minimum guarantee provision was signed. Mr. Silverberg, who is also a member of the Bar of Maryland but not a practicing attorney, corroborated the testimony of Fine and further testified that after he had given the Sonneborns his check for $1,500, he telephoned his son, David Silverberg, and told him to bring to Jen's a form contract relating to the leasing of amusement and vending machines from Merit to appellees. After his son arrived with the form agreement, Morris Silverberg testified that he inserted the minimum guarantee clauses[1] in the blank spaces, after explaining them to the appellees, after which the contract was executed by the Sonneborns. It was also Silverberg's testimony that the terms of this agreement were discussed with Mr. Lichter prior to its formal execution; however, from the preponderance of the evidence, it would appear that Mr. Lichter was not present when the contract was executed. According to the testimony of appellee Jennie Sonneborn, Mr. Silverberg left after he had given the appellees his check for $1,500 and received the assignment of the liquor license; that was the only security arrangement discussed before his departure. She further testified that Silverberg returned alone to Jen's about midnight and "asked us [Sidney Sonneborn et ux.] to sign a paper he had in his handwriting in reference to the $1500. He said, `Just sign this.' We *217 thought it was a note that he had loaned us the $1500." The appellees signed the contract without reading it and alleged that no copy of the agreement was left by Silverberg with them.
 Immediately thereafter appellant installed one pinball machine and shortly thereafter a music box pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Within two weeks of the conception of the contract appellant learned that competitive equipment was installed in the appellees' premises in violation of the agreement. This violation was called to the Sonneborns' attention by letters dated December 8 an December 21, 1962. In March or April of 1963, the competitive bowling machine was removed and appellant installed its own, which according to Jennie Sonneborn was continually out of order.
 Collections from the machines were started by the appellant on a weekly basis and for the first few weeks the proceeds were divided on a 50-50 basis  apparently to give the appellees an incentive. Thereafter the minimum guarantee clause was invoked and this is when controversy developed.
 According to the testimony of Jennie Sonneborn the appellees were first told in the early part of 1963 that they were going to be held to a minimum guarantee and they objected. It was not until after they refused to sign collection slips, reflecting a division of the proceeds according to the minimum guarantee clause, that they allegedly became aware of the leasing contract. Periodic collections continued on a regular basis until June of 1963, after which only intermittent collections were made because, according to Mr. Silverberg, of appellees' interference.
 On August 21, 1964, by letter of their counsel, the appellees ordered the appellant to remove its equipment from their premises. Two subsequent letters dated February 16, and March 30, 1965, ordered removal of the machines and as a result of this correspondence, counsel for the parties reached an agreement for the removal of appellant's equipment and disposition of the proceeds from a final collection to be made without prejudicing the rights of either party.
 On July 6, 1965, Merit filed a bill of camplaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City alleging breach of paragraph g *218 of the agreement of November 16, 1962, which reads as follows:
 "During the term of this lease, or of any renewal thereof, no other electrical, manual, or mechanical coin operated equipment, machines or phonographs of any kind, nature or description shall be permitted on the premise, and in accordance with such provision the Proprietor agrees to permit no other party, parties, firm, corporation or even the Proprietor himself to install and operate any such machine or machines on the said premises during the term of this lease, or any renewal thereof. The Proprietor agrees for himself, his personal representatives, his heirs, successors and assigns, by reason of the aforementioned consideration passing to him, that a decree may be passed by any Court of Equity in which suit is brought for such purpose, enjoining him, his personal representatives, heir[s], successors and assigns from violating this covenant."
 The relief prayed was an injunction restraining appellees "from permitting any electrical, * * * coin-operated equipment, machines, or phonographs of any nature or description of any operator or operators than" appellant on appellees' premises; an accounting and a monetary decree for damages. Appellees' answer denied the existence of a valid, legal and enforceable contract between the parties and in the alternative pleaded that, assuming a valid contract, the appellant breached the agreement by its failure to properly service the equipment and account for the proceeds derived therefrom as provided for in the contract. The Chancellor dismissed the bill of complaint finding that the appellees never agreed to a minimum guarantee; that the alleged contract was without consideration; that the agreement would be unconscionable if the minimum guarantee were to be enforced and the minimum guarantee clause constituted a material addition to the agreement by the appellant. From the Chancellor's order dismissing the bill of complaint, appellant has taken this appeal.
 The Chancellor, sitting as a judge of the law as well as of *219 the facts, found that the contract between the appellant and the appellees on its face was valid despite the apparent harshness of its terms, citing Stamatiades v. Merit Music, 210 Md. 597, 124 A.2d 829 (1956), a case in which the present appellant was involved in litigation regarding a contract similar to that in the case at bar.
 The question now before us is whether or not the Chancellor was clearly in error (Rule 886 a) in his finding that the contract was materially altered by the appellant after its execution by the appellees. The Chancellor in his oral opinion stated: "I find as a fact that this contract was not the contract that the Sonneborns [appellees] agreed to; that the clause in dispute, namely the minimum guarantee clause, was not part of it [contract] at the time they signed it; that there has been a material addition made by the operator, [appellant] * * *."
 This Court is of the opinion that the evidence in this case does not support the finding of the lower court.
 There was no question in the Chancellor's mind that the appellees executed a contract, the court stating:
 "I have no doubt they both signed it. Mrs. Sonneborn identifies her signature and admits it to be her signature. Mr. Sonneborn is not so sure, but I believe this is his signature. I have no difficulty over that."
 The persons who should have been in the best position to give testimony as to whether or not the contract had been altered after its execution were the appellees, but they foreclosed themselves from giving trustworthy testimony on this all important issue because, by their own admission, neither of them read the contract prior to signing it nor, according to their testimony, did they retain a copy in their possession. Mrs. Sonneborn, when asked by counsel what she thought she was signing, testified: "I imagined it was a note." Both appellees readily admitted that they did not read the written document prepared for their signature.
 The date of execution of the contract was November 16, 1962. It was not until March of 1963, that their attorney obtained a photostatic copy of it. After he explained the contract to them, both appellees stated they would never have signed *220 a contract with such harsh terms. Mrs. Sonneborn perhaps best summed it up when replying to a question from appellant's trial attorney regarding her reactions when the contract was explained to them, stating: "When he said it was a seven year contract I said I would never sign a seven year contract under those terms, I would be foolish to sign a contract for $30 a week on a pinball machine and $12 on a music box. I didn't know what those machines would take in a week." Again, later in her testimony, she said: "I never signed a seven year contract calling for a minimum." But the fact remains she did sign a contract and furthermore, she left herself in such a position that she cannot actually say what was, or was not, in the contract for the simple reason that she did not read it, and the same applies to Mr. Sonneborn.
 In the case of Rossi v. Douglas, 203 Md. 190, 100 A.2d 3 (1953) wherein this Court reversed a decree of the Chancellor granting an injunction to restrain the appellant from using certain land reserved to them pursuant to a reservation in a lease agreement; Chief Judge Sobeloff, speaking for the Court, said (p. 199, 100 A.2d 7):
 "There is no claim here of fraud or duress or mutual mistake, and it is well established that in the absence of these features one having the capacity to understand a written document who reads it, or, without reading it or having it read to him, signs it, is bound by his signature. Spitze v. B. & O.R.R., 75 Md. 162, 23 A. 307; Columbia Paper Bag Co. v. Carr, 116 Md. 541, 82 A. 442; McGrath v. Peterson, 127 Md. 412, 96 A. 551; Western Maryland Dairy v. Brown, 169 Md. 257, 262, 181 A. 468, 471; Gardiner v. Gardiner, 200 Md. 233, 88 A.2d 481; Ray v. Eurice, supra; Williston, Contracts, sec. 90 A; Restatement of Contracts, sec. 70. Indeed Williston says that even if an illiterate executes a deed under a mistake as to its contents, he is bound both at law and in equity if he did not require it to be read to him or its object explained. This is everywhere the rule. Williston, Contracts, sec. 1577."
 *221 There is a qualification to the above mentioned rule which this Court recognized in Binder v. Benson, 225 Md. 456, 171 A.2d 248 (1961). Judge Hammond (present Chief Judge), speaking for the Court, said (p. 461, 171 A.2d 250):
 "A qualification of the rule is that an apparent manifestation of assent will not operate to make a contract if the other party knows, or as a reasonable person should know, that the apparent acceptor does not intend what his words or other acts ostensibly indicate. Restatement, Contracts, Sec. 71(c); 3 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 610; 17 C.J.S. Contracts, Sec. 143, p. 497; Frederich v. Union Electric Light & Power Co. (Mo.), 82 S.W.2d 79, 86; General Electric Supply Corp. v. Republic Construction Corp. (Ore.), 272 P.2d 201; Beatty v. Donahue (Ky.), 249 S.W.2d 33; Lange v. United States (C.C.A. 4th), 120 F.2d 886, 889."
 However, there is nothing in the facts of this case to justify the application of this exception.
 In the case before us there is no evidence of fraud; unless we accept the gratuitous assumption that the appellant altered the lease after its execution and to arrive at such a conclusion, one must engage in unwarranted speculation.
 The agreement in question was a form type of contract, part pre-typed and part left in blank, to be filled in to suit the specific terms of a given situation. It was these terms filled in by Morris Silverberg in ink, in his handwriting, that has caused the controversy between the parties.
 If Silverberg filled in the blank spaces of the contract with the very material provisions covering the duration of the contract and the minimum guarantees, after he had obtained the appellees' signatures, then the contract was null and void because there was no concursus ad idem concerning essential provisions of the contract. Robert Fraley v. Null, Inc., et al., 244 Md. 567, 224 A.2d 448 (1966).
 Conversely, if the material provisions had been inserted in the blank spaces prior to the execution of the contract by the appellees, it was a valid contract for the law presumes that a *222 person knows the contents of a document that he executes and undertstands at least the literal meaning of its terms. As was said by Judge Boyd in Smith v. Humphreys, 104 Md. 285, 290-91, 65 A. 57, 59 (1906):
 "Any person who comes into a Court of equity admitting that he can read, and showing that he has average intelligence, but asking the aid of the Court because he did not read a paper involved in the controversy, and was thereby imposed on, should be required to establish a very clear case before receiving the assistance of the Court in getting rid of such document. It is getting to be too common to have parties ask Courts to do what they could have done themselves, if they had exercised ordinary prudence, or, to state it in another way, to ask Courts to undo what they have done by reason of their own negligence or carelessness."
 Morris Silverberg testified in effect that all insertions had been made at the time of the execution of the contract by the appellees and that a copy of the contract was left with them:
 Q. At the time of the execution, when the Sonneborns signed it was this the same kind of agreement?
 A. Yes.
 His testimony was corroborated by his son, David Silverberg:
 Q. You witnessed the signatures?
 A. That's right.
 Q. Was it explained to them? What happened?
 A. My father told them that he would write the minimum into the contract and I explained
 Mr. Peregoff: I didn't hear that.
 A. My father told them as he was filling in the contract, explained the different terms and one of them was the minimum guarantee, and he explained it to them, then I took a piece of scrap paper from somewhere and I wrote it out, giving various examples; if there was $100 in the machine and if there was maybe *223 $20 in the machine, how the money would be divided.
 Q. When you had the discussion of a minimum guarantee were any amounts mentioned?
 A. Yes.
 Q. What were the amounts mentioned?
 A. $30 on the pinball and $12 on the music box per week.
 Q. Was that put in the contract?
 A. Yes, it was.
 The Chancellor also found the contract wanting in consideration. The appellees' counsel did not avail themselves of this argument in their brief and presentation to this Court; we find no merit in this defense. The contract clearly sets forth the loan of $1,500 from the appellant to the appellees as consideration and even though this loan is also evidenced by an interest bearing note, we feel that the making of this sum available to the appellees at a time when it was needed by them, an act which the appellant was under no obligation to perform, was a consideration sufficient to sustain the contract. In addition to the advance of the $1,500 there were other acts which the appellant was obliged to perform pursuant to the contract, such as providing, installing and servicing the machines. Stamatiades v. Merit Music, supra; Hendler Creamery Co. v. Lillich, 152 Md. 190, 136 A. 631 (1927).
 The lower court was heavy in its censure, and rightfully so, of Morris Silverberg's conduct in bringing up the contract, discussing its terms and having it executed after Mr. Lichter, attorney for the appellees, had left Jen's. However, in the Court's opinion, this would not of itself have prevented a valid contract from being consummated. The lower court also scored Silverberg for violating Canon 9, entitled "Negotiations With Opposite Party," of The Canons of Professional Ethics,[2] in that *224 he failed to notify Mr. Lichter that he intended to discuss the terms of the proposed contract and thus afford him the opportunity to participate in the contract negotiations. This conduct prompted the Chancellor to state: "He negotiated a contract which I think under the circumstances becomes highly suspect." Had such facts been committed by a practicing attorney, we may well have concluded that the foundation had been laid from which a deliberate scheme of fraudulent conduct could be adduced. However, Morris Silverberg, although a member of the Bar, was not a practicing attorney and apparently had never represented himself to the public as a member of the Bar. Also he was legitimately present in his capacity as president of the appellant, one of the parties to the contract. Therefore, this Court does not feel that the discussion of the terms of the contract with the appellees, out of the presence of their attorney, was a deliberate artifice resorted to by Silverberg to deceive the appellees or to gain a better bargaining position. The lower court was also skeptical of the fact that a part of the written insertions, covering the minimum guarantee, was inserted in the wrong place in the contract  thus creating an ambiguity. This might well lend credence to the contention of the appellant that the insertions were made in the barroom prior to the execution of the contract and under noisy and argumentative conditions. If the insertions were made later, as the Chancellor believed, would it not have been more likely that greater pains would have been taken by the appellant in filling in the blank spaces when accomplished at his own leisure?
 The lower court also found the contract to be "most unconscionable," yet, harsh as it is, this type of contract is not without precedent in the "pinball" trade. In Stamatiades, supra, the terms of the contract were almost identical with the contract in the case at bar, except that in Stamatiades the life of the contract was five years instead of seven and the amount of the guarantee was $70 per week instead of $42.
 The parties to the contract in the case before us were not strangers to each other. Silverberg had loaned the Sonneborns money on other occasions. They had litigated against each other, they dealt at arms length and neither was prompted by altruism. Their association was sustained by business expediency *225  not by mutual respect; all the more compelling reasons why the appellees should have read the contract.
 Our sympathy, as did that of the lower court, runs with the appellees, yet we must not fall prey to the old maxim: "Hard cases make bad law." It is equally true that: "Hard cases must not be allowed to make bad equity any more than bad law." Moore v. Pierson, 71 Am. Dec. 409, 417 (Iowa 1858).
 We are of the opinion that the Chancellor was clearly erroneous in his finding of fact that the provisions concerning minimum guarantees were inserted by the appellants after the signing of the contract by the appellees and accordingly, we reverse his order dismissing the bill of complaint. We further remand the case to the lower court for the granting of injunctive relief consistent with this opinion and for the assessment of damages.
 Order reversed and remanded for injunctive relief and assessment of damages, appellees to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] "1. The Operator agrees:
 "a. To install at his expense for the effective period of this lease as hereinafter stated in each space or spaces mutually agreed upon in the main room of the Proprietor's premises, the following machines:
 "One Pinball Amusement Machine (at a minimum guarantee of $30.00 per week to operator) plus licence taxes. One Music Machine (at a minimum guarantee to operator of $12.00 per week) plus licence taxes, hereinafter known as `Equipment.'"
 * * *
 "4. The Proprietor further agrees and guarantees that at no time shall the Operator's share be less than Forty Two Dollars ($42.00) per week, each and every week, and in the event that the proceeds to the Operator falls below the aforesaid amount, the Operator shall have the right to terminate this agreement, and all monies due him shall become payable to him immediately."
 [2] "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law."


type: wikipedia

text:
Bergen County är ett administrativt område (county) i delstaten New Jersey, USA. Bergen är det folkrikaste countyt i New Jersey och ett av 21 countyn i delstaten. Det ligger i nordöstra New Jersey och ingår i New Yorks storstadsregion. År 2010 hade Bergen County 905 116 invånare. Den administrativa huvudorten (county seat) är Hackensack.
 Geografi
 Enligt United States Census Bureau har countyt en total area på ca 639 km2. Ca 603 km2 av den arean är land och ca 35 km2 är vatten.
 Angränsande countyn
 Rockland County - nord
 Westchester County - öst
 The Bronx - öst
 Manhattan - öst
 Hudson County - syd
 Essex County - syd
 Passaic County - väst
 Rättsväsende och lagstiftning
 Bergen County är det enda county i USA som har "blue laws" - en lagstiftning där söndag är vilodag och allting är stängt förutom nödvändiga ställen, som matbutiker, restauranger och apotek. Paramus, en stad mitt i Bergen County med ett av landets mest omfattande shopping, har egna lagar där alla typer av anställningar är förbjudna på söndagar.
 Lagen är ursprungligen stiftad av New Jerseys delstatslegislatur, men övriga 20 countyn i New Jersey har folkomröstat om att upphäva lagen i respektive county, vilket lagen tillåter. Invånarna i Bergen County har däremot vid ett flertal tillfällen röstat för att behålla blue laws.
 Källor
 Stater och territorier bildade 1683


text:
Каспичан е село в Североизточна България. То се намира в община Каспичан, област Шумен.
 География
 Село Каспичан е разположено непосредствено до южната част на град Каспичан.
 Редовни събития
 Празникът на селото се отбелязва всяка година на 9 май.
 Население
 Численост на населението според преброяванията през годините:
 Етнически състав
 Преброяване на населението през 2011 г.
 Численост и дял на етническите групи според преброяването на населението през 2011 г.:
 Източници
 Села в област Шумен
 Населени места в община Каспичан


text:
Psychocampa is een geslacht van vlinders van de familie Mimallonidae.
 Soorten
 P. belaria Schaus, 1928
 P. beta (Schaus, 1910)
 P. bibula (Dognin, 1924)
 P. concolor Grote & Robinson, 1867
 P. doralica Dyar, 1928
 P. eminens (Dognin, 1923)
 P. lemoulti (Schaus, 1905)
 P. manicora Schaus, 1928
 P. mawaja (Dognin, 1922)
 P. pluridiscata (Dognin, 1916)
 P. prominens (Schaus, 1910)
 P. sylvia (Schaus, 1920)
 P. veigli Schaus, 1934
 P. ventana (Dognin, 1897)
 P. vitreata (Schaus, 1905)
 Mimallonidae


text:
 9.10.2017
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 338/19
 Rikors ippreżentat fit-18 ta’ Awwissu 2017 – Korea National Insurance Corporation vs Il-Kunsill u Il-Kummissjoni
 (Kawża T-568/17)
 (2017/C 338/22)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: l–Ingliż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: Korea National Insurance Corporation (Pyongyang, ir-Repubblika Demokratika Popolari tal-Korea) (rappreżentanti: M. Lester u S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall u A. Stevenson, Solicitors)
 Konvenuti: Il-Kunsill tal-Unjoni Ewropea u Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea
 Talbiet tar-rikorrenti
 —
 tannulla r-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2017/993, tat-12 ta’ Ġunju 2017, li jemenda r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 329/2007 dwar miżuri restrittivi kontra r-Repubblika Demokratika tal-Poplu tal-Korea (ĠU 2017, L 149, p. 67), id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill (PESK) 2017/994, tat-12 ta’ Ġunju 2017, li temenda d-Deċiżjoni (PESK) 2016/849 dwar miżuri restrittivi kontra r-Repubblika Demokratika tal-Poplu tal-Korea (ĠU 2017, L 149, p. 75), id-Deċiżjoni ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kunsill (PESK) 2017/1459, tal-10 ta’ Awwissu 2017, li timplimenta d-Deċiżjoni (PESK) 2016/849 dwar miżuri restrittivi kontra r-Repubblika Demokratika Popolari tal-Korea (ĠU 2017, L 208, p. 38), u r-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2017/1457, tal-10 ta’ Awwissu 2017, li jemenda r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 329/2007 dwar miżuri restrittivi kontra r-Repubblika Demokratika tal-Poplu tal-Korea (ĠU 2017, L 208, p. 33), sa fejn dawk l-atti jinkludu r-rikorrenti fil-lista ta’ entitajiet suġġetti għall-miżuri restrittivi.
 —
 tikkundanna lill-konvenuti għall-ispejjeż tar-rikorrenti.
 Motivi u argumenti prinċipali
 Insostenn tar-rikors tagħha, ir-rikorrenti tinvoka seba’motivi.
 1.
 L-ewwel motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti naqqsu milli jagħtu raġunijiet adegwati jew suffiċjenti biex jinkludu r-rikorrenti.
 2.
 It-tieni motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti wettqu żball manifest meta kkunsidraw li xi wieħed mill-kriterji għall-elenkar fil-miżuri kkontestati kienu sodisfatti fil-każ tar-rikorrenti; ma hemmx bażi fattwali għall-inklużjoni tagħhom.
 3.
 It-tielet motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti naqqsu milli jagħtu lir-rikorrenti l-evidenza allegatament insostenn tad-deċiżjoni tagħhom li jelenkaw ir-rikorrenti mill-ġdid qabel ma kienet elenkata, jew insostenn tal-implementazzjoni tal-UE tal-elenkar tan-NU, bi vjolazzjoni tad-drittijiet għad-difiża tar-rikorrenti u d-dritt għall-protezzjoni ġudizzjarja effettiva.
 4.
 Ir-raba’ motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti naqqsu milli iwettqu l-obbligi tagħhom meta ddeċidew li jelenkaw ir-rikorrenti wara n-nomina tagħha tan-NU.
 5.
 Il-ħames motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti għamlu użu ħażin tas-setgħat tagħhom billi ppruvaw jrendu ineffettiv u b’hekk jevadu d-dritt tar-rikorrenti għal-rimedju effettiv relatat mal-elenkar tagħha skont l-Artikolu 230 TFUE u/jew kisru d-dritt tar-rikorrenti għall-ugwaljanza fit-trattament.
 6.
 Is-sitt motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti kisru l-liġi tal-protezzjoni tad-data.
 7.
 Is-seba’ motiv ibbażat fuq il-fatt li l-konvenuti kisru, mingħajr ġustifikazzjoni jew proporzjon, id-drittijiet fundamentali tar-rikorrenti, inkluż id-dritt tagħha għal protezzjoni tal-proprjetà tagħha, in-negozju tagħha u r-reputazzjoni tagħha.