SILVERY DRAGON PRESTRESSED MATERIALS CO., LTD. TIANJIN. v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN 3. ) MENTERI KANAN PERDAGANGAN ANTARABANGSA DAN INDUSTRI

Case Significance

Affirms that an anti-dumping determination must meet the disclosure and natural-justice standards of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994; a failure to disclose the detailed dumping-margin calculation, or reliance on contradictory or erroneous figures, renders the determination liable to be quashed.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns a judicial review challenge to an anti-dumping determination. The appellant, Silvery Dragon Prestressed Materials Co., Ltd. Tianjin, a producer in the People's Republic of China of prestressed concrete (PC) steel strands used in construction, exported the subject merchandise to Malaysia. On 22 December 2021 the Minister of Finance signed off on a decision, given effect by the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Order 2021, imposing an anti-dumping duty of 9.47% on the merchandise originating from or exported by the appellant for the period from 25 December 2021 to 24 December 2026. The appellant applied under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 to quash that decision; the High Court dismissed the application, and this was the appeal.

The central questions were whether the respondents' failure to disclose, before the Final Determination, the detailed methodology and figures underpinning the dumping-margin calculation was lawful, and whether the use of erroneous figures rendered the determination invalid. These issues engaged the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, and the duty to disclose the detailed dumping-margin calculation sheet, under the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994. The court also examined the reliability of the injury findings, noting that the Investigating Authority had reached contradictory conclusions on the same data — in one part of the Preliminary Determination Report finding no material injury to the domestic industry in terms of cash flow, and in another finding that dumping had caused such injury.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned decisions were infirmed by illegality, irrationality, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety. It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the decisions by way of certiorari, granting the prayers sought in the judicial review application. By the parties' consent no costs were ordered, and the respondents were directed to refund all monies paid pursuant to the impugned decisions. The judgment is a significant statement on the disclosure and due-process standards governing trade-remedy investigations.