Re: STAINLESS TUBE MILLS PTY LIMITED and AUSTRALIAN STAINLESS TUBE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION And: THE COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOMS; THE ANTI-DUMPING AUTHORITY and THE MINISTER FOR SMALL BUSINESS, CONSTRUCTION AND CUSTOMS Nos. G209 and 517 of 1992 FED No. 157 Number of pages - 13 Administrative Law (1993) 113 ALR 481
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Morling J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - Customs - anti-dumping - whether finding of "like goods" - whether "normal value" properly adjusted - alleged different levels of trade - applications dismissed
Counsel for the appellant: M.H. Tobias QC with B.W. Walker
Instructed by: C.G. Gillis and Co.
Counsel for the respondent: A. Robertson and S.J. Gageler
Instructed by: Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Application dismissed.
2. Applicants to pay respondents' costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
MORLING J. These proceedings have been brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the Judicial Review Act") for orders of review of decisions made by the respondents with respect to applications for the imposition of anti-dumping duties. The applicants sought to have anti-dumping duties imposed in respect of exports of stainless steel welded tube and pipe from Korea and Taiwan. Their applications failed, and they claim in these proceedings that errors of law were made when their applications were considered.
The first applicant produces and sells, and the second applicant represents producers and sellers of, stainless steel tube and piping. The first respondent is empowered to consider applications for the publication by the Minister of State for Small Business and Customs of dumping duty notices or countervailing duty notices in respect of, inter alia, stainless steel tube and pipe pursuant to s 269TB of the Customs Act 1901 ("the Customs Act"). The second respondent ("the Authority") is empowered, pursuant to s 8(2) of the Anti-Dumping Authority Act 1988 to review preliminary findings made by the Comptroller-General.
In July 1991 the first applicant, through its trade association, the second applicant, lodged an application pursuant to s 269TB of the Customs Act for the imposition of anti-dumping duties against exports of stainless steel tubular and pipe products from Taiwan and Korea. On 24 December 1991 the Australian Customs Service (which is under the control of the Comptroller-General) issued a Report and Preliminary Finding No 92/1 ("the 1991 Preliminary Finding") on this application. The report was entitled "Certain Longitudinally Welded Stainless Steel Tubular Products from Taiwan Province and The Republic of Korea". In this report the Australian Customs Service made a negative preliminary finding under s 269TD(3) of the Customs Act with respect to all pipe products and with respect to certain tube products. It also made a positive preliminary finding under s 269TD(2) with respect to ten kinds of tube products.
The…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Goold v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Stainless Tube Mills P/L & Anor v. Comptroller-General of Customs & Anor [1993] FCA 157 ((1993) 113 ALR 481)
Case
[1993] FCA 157
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Goold v Commonwealth was a case heard in the Federal Court of Australia, concerning an appeal against the decisions of the Anti-Dumping Commission. The applicants, Goold and others, sought judicial review of the Commission's determinations regarding anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of certain products. The primary issues in dispute were whether the Commission correctly found "like goods" and if the "normal value" of those goods was properly adjusted. Additionally, the applicants questioned whether the different levels of trade considered by the Commission were appropriate.
The applicants argued that the Commission had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and in its application of the law to the facts. They contended that the findings of "like goods" and the adjustments made to the "normal value" were flawed, and that the Commission had not adequately considered the various levels of trade. The Commonwealth, represented by the respondents, defended the Commission's decisions, asserting that the findings and adjustments were correct and that the Commission had acted within its statutory powers.
The Court found that the Commission had correctly identified the "like goods" and had properly adjusted the "normal value" of those goods. The Court also held that the Commission had appropriately considered the various levels of trade. The applicants' arguments regarding the interpretation and application of the legislation were rejected, and the Court determined that the Commission's decisions were not flawed to the extent claimed. As a result, the applications for judicial review were dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Application dismissed.
2. Applicants to pay respondents' costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.