2026 MarsdenLR 1680

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ONG CHEE KWAN, JCA
SILVERY DRAGON PRESTRESSED MATERIALS CO LTD TIANJIN – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-407-06/2024]

Investigating authorities in anti-dumping proceedings have a mandatory duty to disclose calculation methodologies and underlying data to ensure procedural fairness. Decisions based on erroneous data, double-counting, or contradictory findings on material injury constitute procedural impropriety and satisfy the threshold for Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Headnote:(A) Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 - Sections 2, 16(1), 17(1), 20, 25(2), 38, 41 - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 - Regulations 9, 10, 15(2), 16, 31, 32, 38 - Anti-dumping investigation - Duty of disclosure - Procedural fairness - Quasi-judicial nature of investigation requires transparency - Failure to disclose calculation methodology and underlying data prior to final determination constitutes procedural impropriety - Disclosure during judicial review does not cure initial defects (Paras 80-94).

(B) Anti-dumping margin - Calculation methodology - Irrationality - Determination based on erroneous price selection and double counting is Wednesbury unreasonable - Non-disclosure of calculation sheets prevents interested parties from challenging benchmarks or correcting factual errors effectively - Requirement for fair comparison based on physical product variations (Paras 98-116, 126-130).

(C) Judicial Review - Material injury - Administrative law - Contradictory findings in official reports regarding material injury on same data set render decision irrational and unreasonable (Paras 131-135).

Facts of the case:
An investigation authority initiated an anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of stranded steel wires. The authority imposed a duty based on a final determination report. The exporting entity challenged the decision through judicial review, citing procedural unfairness due to the non-disclosure of the detailed calculation methodology, factual errors in the computation of the dumping margin including the export price determination, failure to account for price comparability across different product categories, and contradictory findings regarding material injury.

Findings of Court:
The court found that anti-dumping investigations are quasi-judicial and subject to strict procedural fairness, including the duty to provide sufficient details of the calculation methodology. The authority's failure to disclose the detailed calculation sheet before the final determination deprived the exporter of a fair opportunity to verify or challenge the basis of the duty imposed. Additionally, the authority committed material errors by misidentifying 'net value' as 'gross value' and applying double deductions for freight and insurance, which resulted in an artificially inflated dumping margin. Furthermore, the authority failed to reconcile conflicting findings of material injury and failed to perform a fair product-specific comparison.

Issues: Whether the investigating authority's failure to disclose the detailed dumping margin calculation sheet violated procedural fairness; whether the calculation of the anti-dumping duty was affected by erroneous factual findings and double-counting; and whether the finding of material injury was irrational due to contradictory conclusions.

Ratio Decidendi: The investigating authority carries a legal duty to provide transparent reasoning and full disclosure of the calculation data and methodology used in anti-dumping determinations to enable interested parties to meaningfully verify the outcome. Decisions containing demonstrably incorrect data, double-counting, or contradictory findings on essential elements like material injury are irrational and subject to being quashed.

Result: Appeal allowed; Impugned decisions quashed; Respondents ordered to refund monies paid.