SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 288

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SURIWONG INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-815-11/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Joshua Kevin,Leng Wie Mun,Reuben Ong ,Respondent Advocate: Farah Shuhada Ramli

The imposition of anti-dumping duties was lawful, and the Minister's refusal to provide reasons for his decision was justified, as the circumstances did not warrant deeper rationalization.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act 1967 - Section 17(1) - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 - Judicial review of anti-dumping duty imposition - Appellant challenged the legality of the duty imposed under the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014, claiming it was unlawfully imposed and violated constitutional rights - High Court dismissed the application, finding the duty imposed was lawful and not tainted by unreasonableness or illegality. (Paras 19, 22, 25, 74)

(B) Duty to provide reasons - The Minister of Finance's decision to refuse remission of duties was straightforward and did not require further explanation - No duty arose to provide reasons as the decision was not mired in circumstances warranting deeper rationalization. (Paras 77, 80)

(C) Proportionality - The imposition of anti-dumping duty was proportionate to the objective of protecting local industries, and the appellant's financial difficulties did not justify remission. (Paras 136, 140)

(D) Right to an oral hearing - No absolute right to an oral hearing existed; the circumstances did not necessitate one. (Paras 144, 146)

Facts of the case:
The appellant imported fibre cement from TPI Polene, declaring it under a tariff code exempt from anti-dumping duties. Following an audit, Customs demanded payment of anti-dumping duties based on a different tariff code. The appellant's application for remission was denied without reasons. (Paras 3-12)

Findings of Court:
The High Court found the imposition of duties lawful, the Minister's decision to refuse remission justified, and the appellant had been adequately informed of the audit findings. (Paras 19, 22, 25)

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the anti-dumping duty, the Minister's duty to provide reasons for his decision, and whether the appellant was entitled to an oral hearing. (Paras 19, 74)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014 was lawful, the Minister's decision did not require further justification, and the appellant's claims of unfair treatment were unsubstantiated. (Paras 22, 25, 77)

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Suriwong International Sdn Bhd, commenced judicial review proceedings against the Minister of Finance and representatives of the Royal Malaysian Customs in connection with the imposition on it of anti-dumping duty amounting to RM2,156,895.84 (under a bill of demand totalling RM2,195,184.28). At first instance, the application was dismissed by Amarjeet Singh J at the High Court . The appellant appealed against this decision.

[2] After hearing submissions, this Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2023. The reasons for our decision are recorded here. Since the date of the decision, our learned brother Kamaludin Md Said JCA has retired, and hence these grounds of judgment have been prepared pursuant to the provisions of s 42(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Material Background Facts

[3] The appellant is engaged in the trading of building materials. Up until June 2016 it imported fibre cement from a company known as Shera Public Company Limited using the harmonised system tariff code 6811.82. Under the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) Order 2014, such importation was subject to an anti-dumping duty of 31.14%, which was duly paid by the appellant.

[4] From June 2016 onwards, the appellant imported fibre cement from TPI Polene Public Company Limited ("TPI Polene"). The fibre cement purchased from TPI Polene was imported and declared by the appellant under the tariff code 6811.89. There was no anti-dumping duty applicable on goods imported under this tariff code.

[5] On 3 October 2019 the appellant received a letter from Customs informing it that a post-import audit would be conducted over the appellant. On 7 October 2019 representatives from Customs attended at the premises of the appellant in Seri Mergong Industrial Park in Alor Setar. Documents were given by the appellant to the Customs in stages over the course of that and the following month.

[6] The audit was conducted in respect of the period 1 July 2017 until 31 July 2019. The results of the audit showed that the appellant had imported cement fibre sheets valued at RM6,926,447.77 that it had purchased from TPI Polene and which had been declared under the tariff code 6811.89.

[7] A notice was issued to the appellant on behalf of the director general of Customs on 17 June 2020, for a representative of the appellant to be present at the Customs office in Alor Setar on 24 June 2020. According to Customs, this meeting was for the purpose of explaining to the appellant the preliminary findings of the audit. Mr Kang Chin Tat, the managing director of the appellant, disputed this, stating that he was only called to provide a statement to assist the Customs in its investigations[1]. But as we shall see, the appellant's own letters to the relevant authorities acknowledged that the appellant had explained its position in this meeting.

[8] A further meeting, described as a round table discussion, was held on 13 August 2020. According to Customs, the final audit findings were presented to the appellant at this meeting. The minutes of the meeting contained an acknowledgment Mr Kang. However, on affidavit, he claimed that he was not given an opportunity to explain the appellant's position at this round table meeting.

[9] On 27 October 2020, Customs issued to the appellant a bill of demand under s 17(1) of the Customs Act 1967 and s 43 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014. In this bill of demand, the appellant was said to have been found to have committed an offence by using the wrong tariff codes, and was required to pay the sum of RM2,195,184.28, comprising unpaid anti-dumping duties and underpaid goods and services tax. The demand for underpaid goods and services tax was not made the subject of the judicial review application.

[10] On 3 November 2020, the appellant made an application[2] to the Deputy Minister of Finance II for remission of the anti-dumping duty and goods and services tax imposed by the bill o



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top