J. Wattie Canneries Ltd v Hayes, T.P. (Comptroller-General of Customs) [1987] FCA 381

J. Wattie Canneries Ltd v Hayes, T.P. (Comptroller-General of Customs) [1987] FCA 381

At the provisional stage of imposing security under s.42, Customs need only form a genuine opinion based on evidence that dumping/subsidization may have caused or threaten material injury and that duties may thus become payable; final conclusions are not required, and the process met the legal requirements of procedural fairness in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: J Wattie Canneries Limited; First Respondent: Thomas Plunkett Hayes, Comptroller-General of Customs; Second Respondent: Petersville Industries Limited; Third Respondent: McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Measures, Imposition of Security for Potential Duty, Natural Justice in Administrative Decision Making, Preliminary Findings Under Customs Tariff (anti Dumping) Act, Procedural Fairness for Importers
Administrative Law Customs and Trade Anti Dumping Measures Imposition of Security for Potential Duty Natural Justice in Administrative Decision Making Preliminary Findings Under Customs Tariff (anti Dumping) Act Procedural Fairness for Importers

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 2 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Wattie Canneries Limited

Appellant

Thomas Plunkett Hayes, Comptroller-General of Customs

First Respondent

Petersville Industries Limited

Second Respondent

McCain Foods (Australia) Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What inquiries and procedures are required before the lawful imposition of security under s.42 of the Customs Act 1901 for duties that may be payable under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975?
  2. 2 Is a temporal relationship between dumping/subsidy and material injury necessary?
  3. 3 Was there evidence supporting the conclusion that duty may be payable?

Ratio Decidendi

At the provisional stage of imposing security under s.42, Customs need only form a genuine opinion based on evidence that dumping/subsidization may have caused or threaten material injury and that duties may thus become payable; final conclusions are not required, and the process met the legal requirements of procedural fairness in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend refused
  • Appeal dismissed