International Trade Administration Commission and Another v SA Tyre Manufacturers Conference (Pty) Ltd and Others (738/2010) [2011] ZASCA 137 (23 September 2011)

International Trade Administration Commission and Another v SA Tyre Manufacturers Conference (Pty) Ltd and Others (738/2010) [2011] ZASCA 137 (23 September 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 32(4) of the International Trade Administration Act does not require ITAC to investigate whether the exporting country as a whole operates as a free market economy. ITAC is only required to consider whether the normal value of the goods in question is determined according to free market principles, and only if there is substantial reason to doubt this. The China Protocol does not confer rights on private parties and is not part of South African municipal law. ITAC's investigation and determination of normal value were rational and based on evidence, and the High Court erred in reviewing and setting aside ITAC's recommendation and the...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 137
Parties
Appellant: International Trade Administration Commission; Appellant: Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: South African Tyre Manufacturers Conference (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bridgestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Continental Tyre (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dunlop Tyres International (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2011
Case Number
738/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the High Court set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application with costs, including costs of three counsel.
Judges
Harms, Mthiyane, Cloete, Cachalia, Shongwe
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Duties, Review of Administrative Action, Normal Value Determination, Government Intervention, Market Economy Status
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Anti Dumping Duties Review of Administrative Action Normal Value Determination Government Intervention Market Economy Status

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Trade Administration Commission

Appellant

Minister of Trade and Industry

Appellant

South African Tyre Manufacturers Conference (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bridgestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Continental Tyre (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dunlop Tyres International (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ITAC was obliged to investigate the market economy status of the People's Republic of China under section 32(4) of the ITA Act.
  2. 2 Whether ITAC's determination of 'normal value' for anti-dumping purposes was rational and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in reviewing and setting aside ITAC's recommendation and the Minister's decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 32(4) of the International Trade Administration Act does not require ITAC to investigate whether the exporting country as a whole operates as a free market economy. ITAC is only required to consider whether the normal value of the goods in question is determined according to free market principles, and only if there is substantial reason to doubt this. The China Protocol does not confer rights on private parties and is not part of South African municipal law. ITAC's investigation and determination of normal value were rational and based on evidence, and the High Court erred in reviewing and setting aside ITAC's recommendation and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the High Court set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application with costs, including costs of three counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of three counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application with costs, including the costs of three counsel.