Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 1) [2017] FCA 1114

Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 1) [2017] FCA 1114

The Houston Report was relevant and admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 because the unreasonableness challenge turned on economic concepts and assumptions in paragraph 76 of Report 47, including profit margin, return on investment and higher substituted input costs, and the relevant statutory framework...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for an Advance Ruling Under S 192 A(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth) as to Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
The respondents' overall objection to admissibility was rejected; the Report of Greg Houston dated 8 August 2017 was held admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 of the originating application.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'advance Ruling' 'unreasonableness Ground of Judicial Review' 'anti Dumping Duties' 'normal Value of Goods']
['evidence' 'administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'advance Ruling' 'unreasonableness Ground of Judicial Review' 'anti Dumping Duties' 'normal Value of Goods']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for an Advance Ruling Under S 192 A(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth) as to Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Report of Greg Houston dated 8 August 2017 was admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 of the originating application.' "Whether expert economic evidence not before the primary decision-maker was relevant to an ADJR Act unreasonableness challenge concerning the ADRP's approach to profit margin, return on investment and substituted costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Houston Report was relevant and admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 because the unreasonableness challenge turned on economic concepts and assumptions in paragraph 76 of Report 47, including profit margin, return on investment and higher substituted input costs, and the relevant statutory framework incorporated economic concepts such that expert economic evidence could assist the Court in assessing whether the ADRP's approach was unreasonable or irrational.

Court Disposition

The respondents' overall objection to admissibility was rejected; the Report of Greg Houston dated 8 August 2017 was held admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 of the originating application.

Orders

  • ['The Report of Greg Houston dated 8 August 2017 and filed on behalf of the applicant on 8 August 2017 is admissible in principle in relation to ground 7 of the originating application.' "The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application filed on 22 August 2017, as agreed or...