Kanthal Australia Pty Ltd v The Minister for Industry Techology & Commerce & Anor [1987] FCA 648

Kanthal Australia Pty Ltd v The Minister for Industry Techology & Commerce & Anor [1987] FCA 648

None of the applicant's grounds for judicial review are made out. The presumption of regularity applies and in absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that Mr Tatnell had proper delegation. Section 4(3) of the Act allows inference from resale at a loss. Natural justice was not denied; the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to answer the case and there was no demonstrated bias.

Parties
Applicant: Kanthal Australia Pty Limited; First Respondent: The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce; Second Respondent: Raymond McMahon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Dumping Control, Export Price Determination, Natural Justice, Official Delegation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Customs Law Dumping Control Export Price Determination Natural Justice Official Delegation Judicial Review

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanthal Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce

First Respondent

Raymond McMahon

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the determination of 'export price' under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 was validly made
  2. 2 Whether the decision that the transaction was not at arms length was based on correct statutory construction
  3. 3 Whether the decision-maker had the requisite authority or delegation

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant's grounds for judicial review are made out. The presumption of regularity applies and in absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that Mr Tatnell had proper delegation. Section 4(3) of the Act allows inference from resale at a loss. Natural justice was not denied; the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to answer the case and there was no demonstrated bias.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay to the respondents their costs of the proceeding.