Back
2022 MarsdenLR 16
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NATSTEEL HOLDINGS PTE LTD – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI KEWANGAN & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-94-02/2020]
Judicial review can be granted when procedural fairness is compromised, particularly through failure to disclose necessary details justifying administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 (Act 504) – Judicial Review – The Applicant sought judicial review against the imposition of anti-dumping duties at the rate of 4.97% on imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Singapore and Turkey – The Investigation Authority's failure to provide details and computations for the imposed duties contravened principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, placing the validity of the duties in question. (Paras 29-92)
(B) The Investigation Authority's deviation from long-standing practices of sharing detailed calculations with exporters compromised the Applicant's rights to defend against the dumping margin calculations. (Paras 56-75)
Facts of the case: The Applicant, a steel producer and exporter, contested the imposition of anti-dumping duties after an investigation found that its sales were below costs, without sufficient prior information or breakdown on calculated margins from the Investigation Authority.
Findings of Court: The Court ruled that the failure to disclose methodology and detailed calculations constituted a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness standards. The Court emphasized that transparency in such processes is vital for fair decision-making. (Paras 89-90)
Issues: Whether the Respondent's failure to disclose detailed calculations breached procedural fairness and natural justice principles, thereby affecting the legitimacy of the imposed duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a failure to provide adequate detail on normal value computations and dumping margins undermines procedural fairness, leading to an unjustified imposition of duties. (Paras 76-88)
Result: The judicial review application allowed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Applicant filed an application for judicial review (encl 29) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) to seek the following reliefs:
1.1. That the Applicant be granted leave to apply for an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister of Finance to impose anti-dumping duties at the rate of 4.97% on steel concrete reinforcing bar products that are hot rolled steel bars containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformation originating or exported from Natsteel Holdings Pte Ltd of the Republic of Singapore from 22 January 2020 to 21 January 2025 as set out in the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2020 PU(A) 22 dated 21 January 2020 following the recommendation or proposal of the Minister of International Trade and Industry arising from an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation with regard to the imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar products that are hot rolled steel bars containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformation originating or exported from the Republic of Singapore and Republic of Turkey;
1.2. That the Applicant be granted leave to apply for an order for certiorari to quash the decision and/or recommendation of the Minister of International Trade and Industry to impose anti-dumping duties at the rate of 4.97% on steel concrete reinforcing bar products that are hot rolled steel bars containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformation originating or exported from Natsteel Holdings Pte Ltd of the Republic of Singapore from 22 January 2020 to 21 January 2025 as set out in the Notice of Affirmative Final Determination and the Final Determination Report of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation with regard to the imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar products that are hot rolled steel bars containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformation originating or exported from the Republic of Singapore and the Republic of Turkey both dated 21 January 2020 and 7 January 2020 respectively'
1.3 That there shall be no order as to costs; and
1.4 Such further and other orders and/or directions as may be given or made as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances.
[2] In gist, this Judicial Review Application is made to review the decision given by the Respondents by way of the Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation about the Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) Products, originating or exported from the Republic of Singapore and the Republic of Turkey No PU(B) 46 dated 21 January 2020 and the Final Determination Report dated 7 January 2020 in imposing anti-dumping duties at the rate of 4.97% on steel concrete reinforcing bar products that are hot rolled steel bars containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformation originating or exported from the Applicant of the Republic of Singapore from 22 January 2020 to 21 January 2025.
[3] After the hearing, I allowed the Applicant's judicial review application (Enclosure 29). I will now set out the grounds of my judgment.
Background Facts
[4] The background facts of this case are adopted with and/or without modification from the Statement, Affidavit in Support and the Written Submission of the parties.
[5] Natsteel is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Singapore. Its registered address is 22 Tanjong Kling Road, Singapore 628048.
[6] The company produces and supplied steel products and services to the construction industry and is the producer and exporter of steel concrete reinforcing bars to Malaysia.
[7] By a "Petition for Anti-Dumping Duties on imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar originating or exported from the Republic of Singapore and Republic of Turkey" dated 29 March 2019, the Malaysia Steel Association (MSA), requested for the 3rd and 4th Respondents to initiate an anti-dumping investigation on Rebar originating or exported from the Republic of Singapore and Republic of Turkey.
[See Exhibit "A-1" on pp 2
