Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science & Ors

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Changshu Longte Grinding Ball Co., Ltd, sought to challenge a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science's (and by extension, the Anti-Dumping Commission and Anti-Dumping Review Panel's) calculation of the normal value of the applicant's goods for the purposes of anti-dumping duties.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Parliamentary Secretary erred in calculating the normal value of the applicant's goods under section 269TAC(2)(c) of the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth). Specifically, the applicant argued that the method used to determine the cost of production and profit was inconsistent with the *Customs Regulations 1901* (Cth) and potentially with Australia's international treaty obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement. The applicant contended that the respondent incorrectly applied surrogate costs when calculating the cost of production and then used two different cost bases to determine the profit amount, thereby artificially inflating the normal value.

The applicant's primary argument was that the respondent erred by using surrogate costs to determine the cost of production under section 43 of the Regulations, when the preconditions for using such costs were not met. Furthermore, the applicant argued that section 45 of the Regulations, which governs the calculation of profit, required the profit to be calculated by reference to the same cost of production determined under section 43. The applicant submitted that the respondent's methodology, which involved calculating profit as a percentage of an inflated cost base, was not authorised by the Act or the Regulations and distorted the true profit margin. The applicant also raised arguments concerning the interpretation of section 269TAC(2)(c) in light of WTO jurisprudence, suggesting that the respondent's approach to using surrogate costs and adjusting for market situations was too broad and not supported by international standards.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal on the grounds relating to the interpretation of section 269TAC(2)(c) and its interaction with the Regulations and WTO obligations. The Court indicated that the core of the appeal would involve determining whether the respondent's methodology for calculating the normal value, particularly the use of surrogate costs and the method for calculating profit, was legally sound and consistent with Australia's international commitments. The specific orders of the High Court are not detailed in this transcript, as it records the oral arguments for special leave.