Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 2)

In the case of Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (No 2), the applicant, Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd, sought judicial review of anti-dumping measures imposed on ferrous grinding balls exported from China to Australia. The judicial review was contested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. The case centred on the application of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and the Customs (International Obligations Act) Regulation 2015 (Cth) in relation to the determination of the cost of production, administrative, selling and general costs, and the normal value of goods. The applicant argued that the Minister had made a reviewable error by using benchmark prices from third countries to determine the cost of production or manufacture in the country of export, failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration, and the calculation of profit was illogical, irrational, or unreasonable.

The court examined whether the Minister had correctly applied the statutory provisions in determining the cost of production or manufacture in the country of export. It was noted that Longte acknowledged that ground 1 had to be rejected because the Court was bound to follow the Steelforce Full Court decision, which is inconsistent with Longte’s position that third-country information cannot be used in determining the cost of production or manufacture in the country of export. Longte contended that grounds 2, 3, and 4 were supported by Steelforce Full Court, arguing that any comparative advantages or disadvantages that the producers in the country of export have over producers from which the foreign pricing information has been obtained is a mandatory relevant consideration. The court found that Perram J's statements in Steelforce Full Court at [118], which Longte relied upon, did not form part of the ratio of the Full Court’s decision, and thus, were not binding on the court.

The court ultimately rejected all seven grounds of judicial review submitted by Longte. The applicant failed to establish any of its claims, and the originating application was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs, as agreed or assessed.

In conclusion, the Federal Court dismissed Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd’s judicial review application, affirming that the Minister’s decisions in imposing anti-dumping measures were not flawed as claimed by the applicant. The court held that the use of third-country information in determining the cost of production or manufacture in the country of export was permissible under the applicable statutes, and the Minister's decisions were rational and within the scope of the statutory authority.