Caterpillar (Xuzhou) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade & Anor [2025] EWHC 1124 (Admin) (09 May 2025)

Caterpillar (Xuzhou) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade & Anor [2025] EWHC 1124 (Admin) (09 May 2025)

The TRA was not under a statutory duty to notify Caterpillar as an interested party unless Caterpillar was known to it at the relevant time. The statutory regime requires interested parties to make themselves known during the registration period. Caterpillar had actual knowledge of the investigation but failed to act, and thus cannot claim procedural unfairness. The SSBT lawfully exercised discretion in accepting the TRA's recommendation. The claim is academic as Caterpillar's data was ultimately considered and an individual rate applied retrospectively. There was no breach of statutory duty or procedural fairness by the Defendants.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1124 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Caterpillar (Xuzhou) Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Business and Trade; Second Defendant: Trade Remedies Authority; Interested Party: Finning (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Expedited 'rolled Up' Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Duties, Procedural Fairness, Duty of Candour, Trade Remedies, Judicial Review, Notification of Interested Parties
Administrative Law International Trade Law Public Law Anti Dumping Duties Procedural Fairness Duty of Candour Trade Remedies Judicial Review +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caterpillar (Xuzhou) Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Business and Trade

First Defendant

Trade Remedies Authority

Second Defendant

Finning (UK) Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Expedited 'rolled Up' Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) breached a statutory duty to notify Caterpillar of the anti-dumping investigation as an interested party
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (SSBT) lawfully exercised discretion in accepting the TRA's recommendation for provisional anti-dumping measures
  3. 3 Whether the claim is academic due to subsequent calculation of an individual anti-dumping rate for Caterpillar

Ratio Decidendi

The TRA was not under a statutory duty to notify Caterpillar as an interested party unless Caterpillar was known to it at the relevant time. The statutory regime requires interested parties to make themselves known during the registration period. Caterpillar had actual knowledge of the investigation but failed to act, and thus cannot claim procedural unfairness. The SSBT lawfully exercised discretion in accepting the TRA's recommendation. The claim is academic as Caterpillar's data was ultimately considered and an individual rate applied retrospectively. There was no breach of statutory duty or procedural fairness by the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with judicial review refused as claim is unarguable and/or academic
  • No relief granted to Caterpillar