Steelforce Trading Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science [2018] FCAFC 20

Steelforce Trading Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science [2018] FCAFC 20

By majority, the appeal was allowed because the Commissioner committed legal error in applying reg 45(3)(a) of the Customs (International Obligations) Regulation 2015 (Cth). The phrase 'actual amounts realised' required identification of the actual profit realised from sales of goods in the same general category, but the Commissioner used review-period production costs for sales including goods made earlier when costs were higher. That did not identify the actual amounts realised. The other grounds concerning procedural fairness, no evidence, material findings, same general category of goods, and use of third-country benchmark prices failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review in an Anti Dumping Proceeding / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed by majority; Report No 285 and recommendations quashed; matter remitted to the Commissioner for preparation of a report according to law.
Legal Topics
['review of Anti Dumping Measures' 'normal Value of Goods' 'procedural Fairness' 'no Evidence Ground' 'material Findings of Fact' 'same General Category of Goods' 'actual Amounts Realised' 'cost of Production or Manufacture' 'use of Third Country Benchmark Prices']
['administrative Law' 'customs and Anti Dumping Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['review of Anti Dumping Measures' 'normal Value of Goods' 'procedural Fairness' 'no Evidence Ground' 'material Findings of Fact' 'same General Category of Goods' 'actual Amounts Realised' 'cost of Production or Manufacture' 'use of Third Country Benchmark Prices']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review in an Anti Dumping Proceeding / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner denied procedural fairness by treating non-prime HSS differently from downgrade HSS after the Statement of Essential Facts.' 'Whether there was no evidence, or inadequate material findings, to support a distinction between non-prime and downgrade HSS.' 'Whether the Commissioner had identified non-prime and downgrade HSS as being in the same general category of goods but used only non-prime HSS to calculate profit under reg 45(3)(a).' "Whether the Commissioner erred in calculating the 'actual amounts realised' under reg 45(3)(a) by using review-period production costs for sales that included goods produced earlier." 'Whether s 269TAC(2)(c)(i) permitted use of third-country benchmark prices for HRC, and whether comparative advantages in China had to be adjusted for.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appeal was allowed because the Commissioner committed legal error in applying reg 45(3)(a) of the Customs (International Obligations) Regulation 2015 (Cth). The phrase 'actual amounts realised' required identification of the actual profit realised from sales of goods in the same general category, but the Commissioner used review-period production costs for sales including goods made earlier when costs were higher. That did not identify the actual amounts realised. The other grounds concerning procedural fairness, no evidence, material findings, same general category of goods, and use of third-country benchmark prices failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by majority; Report No 285 and recommendations quashed; matter remitted to the Commissioner for preparation of a report according to law.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' "The Respondents pay the Appellants' costs of the appeal as taxed or agreed." 'Set aside the orders of the Federal Court made on 9 November 2016.' "The Second Respondent's Report No 285 and the recommendations contained within it be quashed." 'The First Respondent not rely upon Report No...