JUDGMENT

Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ:

[1] This Appeal relates to the application of ss 17 and 18 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 [Act 504], particularly in relation to the determination of the export price of subject merchandise for the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duties.

[2] We heard the submissions of both parties on 15 April 2025 and delivered our decision on the same day, whereby we unanimously allowed the appeal with no order as to costs. We hereby provide our reasons for so deciding.

[3] The Appellants obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court under ss 96(a) and 97 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 upon the following questions of law:

Question 1

Whether s 17 of Act 504 must be read with s 18 of the same to ensure fair comparison between export price and normal value which is normally at ex-factory level?

Question 2

Whether subsections 17(2) and 17(3) of Act 504 are applicable for the determination of export price when the export price had been determined based on subsection 17(1) of the same and no issue arises that there is no export price or that it appears that the export price is unreliable?

Question 3

Whether the determination of export price can be made pursuant to subsections 17(2) and 17(3) of Act 504 without taking into account subsections 17(1), 18(1) and 18(3) of the same?

Question 4

Whether the Respondent's sales transaction to DDT can be interpreted as normal value pursuant to subsection 16(1) of Act 504 when the product that is being sold by the Respondent to DDT is for the purpose of importation into Malaysia and not for use in exporter's domestic market?

Question 5

Whether in making a price comparison pursuant to s 18 of Act 504 and reg 32 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 (CADDR) between the export price and normal value, adjustment had to be made even though no cost was borne by the Respondent in the domestic market with respect to duty drawback?

[4] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as follows: (a) Menteri Kewangan (the 1st Appellant)

(b) Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa Dan Industri (the 2nd Appellant)

(c) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (the 3rd Appellant)

(d) Kerajaan Malaysia (the 4th Appellant)

(e) Diler Demir Celik Endustru Ve Ticaret AS (the Respondent)

Background Facts

[5] Diler Demir Celik Endustru Ve Ticaret A.S. (the Respondent), also known as Diler Iron and Steel Co Inc (DDC), is a company incorporated in the Republic of Turkey. The Respondent engaged Diler Dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (DDT), a related trading company, to export Steel Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) into Malaysia.

[6] On 29 March 2019, the Malaysian Steel Association (MSA), which is the 5th Respondent in the High Court , on behalf of the domestic industry, namely:

(i) Malaysia Steel Works (KL) Bhd; (ii) Amstee Mills Sdn Bhd;

(iii) Antara Steel Mills Sdn Bhd; and

(iv) Established Metal Industries Sdn Bhd,

submitted both a confidential and non-confidential anti-dumping Petition pursuant to ss 4 and 20 of Act 504 to the 2nd Appellant, requesting initiation of an anti-dumping investigation on Rebar originated or exported from Singapore and Turkey.

[7] On 26 April 2019, the 2nd Appellant issued the Notice of Initiation of an Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation, initiating an anti-dumping investigation on imports of Rebar originating from or exported from Singapore and Turkey. This was published in the Government Gazette P.U.(B) 211/2019. Such an action was empowered under:

(i) Section 20(8) of Act 504;

(ii) reg 7 of the CADDR; and

(iii) Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement [WTO AD Agreement].

[8] The Respondent provided its response to the Foreign Producer's/Exporter's Questionnaire that had been distributed by the Government on 7 June 2019.

[9] On 5 September 2019, the Investigation Authority (IA) ie the Trade Practices Section of the Ministry of Interna