Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 225

Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs [2011] FCA 225

The TMRO was entitled under s 269ZZK(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) to recommend reinvestigation of all findings identified in section 3.2 of TMR 138, as each was specified by at least one application for review. Customs' and the Minister's subsequent decisions were authorised. The finding that injury due to dumping was not material did not result from misconstruing 'material injury' or flawed reasoning; Customs' process was lawful, logical, and supported by evidence. The application was therefore dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: SCA Hygiene Australia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Chief Executive Officer of Customs; Third Respondent: Commonwealth Attorney-General; Fourth Respondent: PT Pindo Deli Pulp Mills; Fifth Respondent: Gold Hong Ye Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Duties, Judicial Review, Review of Administrative Action, Material Injury, Revocation of Dumping Duty Notice
Customs & Excise Administrative Law Anti Dumping Duties Judicial Review Review of Administrative Action Material Injury Revocation of Dumping Duty Notice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd

First Applicant

SCA Hygiene Australia Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Chief Executive Officer of Customs

Second Respondent

Commonwealth Attorney-General

Third Respondent

PT Pindo Deli Pulp Mills

Fourth Respondent

Gold Hong Ye Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TMRO was authorised to recommend that all findings made by Customs be reinvestigated under s 269ZZK(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the decision to revoke the dumping duty notice was infected with legal error based on the misconstruction of 'material injury'
  3. 3 Whether the recommendation and revocation decisions were irrational, illogical or unsupported by logical grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The TMRO was entitled under s 269ZZK(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) to recommend reinvestigation of all findings identified in section 3.2 of TMR 138, as each was specified by at least one application for review. Customs' and the Minister's subsequent decisions were authorised. The finding that injury due to dumping was not material did not result from misconstruing 'material injury' or flawed reasoning; Customs' process was lawful, logical, and supported by evidence. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs, as taxed or agreed.