Примери за използване на Shinetime china на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Shinetime China had issued a pro-forma invoice below the MIP to an unrelated customer in the Union.
On the contrary, the claim of Shinetime China on the authenticity of these invoices is irrelevant.
Shinetime China only confirmed the issuance of one re-sale invoice that respected the MIP.
In the absence of signature and seal on the invoices referred to in recitals(23)and(24), Shinetime China could not trace those invoices in their system.
The arguments of Shinetime China concerning the payment of the invoice are addressed in recitals(41) to(48).
The Commission established that an unrelated customer in the Union had engaged to pay an amount below the MIP to Shinetime China for the transaction referred to in recital(23).
Shinetime China also argued that the payment to Shinetime Europe was only a partial payment.
The payment from the final customer was made to Shinetime China for this transaction and corresponded to the invoice value for which the MIP was not respected.
Shinetime China submitted the underlying confirmation of payment to substantiate its argument on partial payment.
Including a late payment interest, due to the cease of Shinetime Europe's business activity was paid to Shinetime China 10 months later.
In addition, Shinetime China admitted that the transaction referred to in recital(24) was not reported to the Commission.
The Commission did not argue whether the invoices referred to in the above recitals were official invoices of Shinetime China and official re-sale invoices of Shinetime Europe.
Shinetime China claimed that Shinetime Europe submitted the relevant quarterly sales report late.
The Commission based this finding on a correspondence which Shinetime China claimed not to be in position to refute due to the departure of the relevant personnel.
Shinetime China explained that their internal rules require all official invoices to be signed and sealed.
Such breaches, although they constitute sufficient grounds for the withdrawal of Shinetime China from the undertaking, are not taken into account in the assessment concerning the invalidation of the given transaction.
Shinetime China submitted comments on behalf of Shinetime China and Shinetime Europe and has been heard.
The Commission has accordingly assessed the impact of the breaches by Shinetime China and its related company in the Union on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
Shinetime China claimed that the payment received from the allegedly unrelated importer referred to in recital(22) was only a prepayment.
An extract from the customer ledger, without any further evidence to link the payment received from the allegedly unrelated importer to the transaction of the final customer in the Union is irrelevant,hence does not refute the evidence disclosed to Shinetime China.
Shinetime China also claimed that the late submission of the quarterly report is not sufficient to invalidate the transaction referred to in recital(24).
Second, the delivery notice submitted by Shinetime China suggests that the solar modules were indeed delivered to the unrelated customer in the Union despite the non-respect of the payment term.
Shinetime China contested that Shinetime China and Shinetime Europe had issued invoices and re-sale invoices for which the MIP was not respected.
Therefore, the Commission considers the arguments of Shinetime China unfounded and upholds its conclusions that Shinetime Europe breached the undertaking by selling below the MIP to an unrelated customer in the Union.
Shinetime China claimed that the documentation related to the transaction referred to in recital(24) was in line with the requirements of the undertaking and that it respected the MIP.
The Commission considers that the sole statement of Shinetime China that neither the relevant correspondence nor the invoice in question is traceable in its system or that the company does not have an account in Hong Kong is insufficient to alter the above finding.
Set aside that Shinetime China has not respected its obligation to inform the Commission about the cease of the business activity of Shinetime Europe, the Commission points out that the reporting obligation covers all transactions in the given calendar quarter.
Third, Shinetime China did not submit any further evidence(such as agreement with the customer on the alleged partial payment or debit note for late payment interest) to support its claim concerning the alleged partial payment and late payment interest, apart from the confirmation of payment for these amounts.
Therefore, even if Shinetime China claimed the re-sale invoice issued for an amount below the MIP as not authentic, the underlying financial transaction(e.g. the amount of money actually received from the buyer after any adjustments for credit/debit notes and the like) was not in conformity with the face value of the commercial re-sale invoice confirmed to be the official re-sale invoice of Shinetime Europe.