Electra Cables (Aust.) Pty Limited v Minister for Industry and Innovation

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 24 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] FCA 1677
• Date: 24 December 2025
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Electra Cables (Aust.) Pty Limited v Minister for Industry and Innovation [2025] FCA 1677

ORDERS

NSD 1586 of 2024
BETWEEN:	ELECTRA CABLES (AUST.) PTY LIMITED (ACN 056 024 385) Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION First Respondent ANTI-DUMPING REVIEW PANEL Second Respondent COMMISSIONER, ANTI-DUMPING COMMISSION Third Respondent

order made by:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 DECEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. By no later than 4:00pm on 9 February 2026, the parties exchange any further evidence or submissions on the issue of relief.

2. By no later than three days following compliance with Order 1, the parties exchange any responsive evidence and revised submissions on the issue of relief (to the extent the party wishes to respond to submissions made by the opposing party).

3. The proceeding be adjourned part-heard for a further hearing on the question of relief on a date to be fixed in February 2026.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEE J:

A Introduction AND BACKGROUND

1 After examining a morass of colourfully shaded cells across many spreadsheets with an antique magnifying glass provided by counsel for the applicant, and hearing argument about the legality of several administrative decisions as well as the interpretation of various statutory provisions, I now find myself in a position to deliver reasons.

2 Primarily, this proceeding concerns how an “export price” is determined under s 269TAB of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (Customs Act) for the ultimate purpose of determining whether “dumping” has occurred. Generally, “dumping” occurs when the “export price” for the relevant goods is less than the “normal value” of those goods. Therefore, determining the “export price” is of central importance. To those unaccustomed to the terms of the Customs Act, one would have thought this would be a relatively straightforward exercise, but as is explained below, this has not proven to be the case.

3 The goods in question in this case are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flat electrical cables (Goods), which were exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China (China) by Guilin International Wire and Cable Group (Guilin). The goods were imported by the applicant (Electra), which is an entity related to Guilin.

4 This dispute has an intricate and Labyrinthine history, which is helpful to explain.

5 On 23 March 2018, Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd, a manufacturer of PVC electrical cables in Australia, lodged an application under s 269TB of the Customs Act seeking the publication of a dumping duty notice and a countervailing duty notice in respect of the Goods exported to Australia from China. The application alleged that the exportation of the Goods to Australia from China at dumped and subsidised prices had caused material injury to the Australian industry producing like goods.

6 On 4 June 2018 and in response to that application, the third respondent, the Commissioner of the Anti-Dumping Commission (Commissioner), initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping and subsidisation of the Goods exported to Australia from China during the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.

7 On 8 April 2019, the Anti-Dumping Commission (ADC) finalised its report, being ADC Report 469. ADC Report 469 set out the findings on which the Commissioner based his recommendations to the then Minister for Industry, Science and Technology (Minister) regarding the investigation.

8 On 14 May 2019, the then Minister, having considered ADC Report 469 and accepted the Commissioner’s recommendations, declared under s 269TG(1) and (2) of the Customs Act that s 8 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth) (Anti-Dumping Act) applied to the Goods, specifying a dumping margin of 6.6% (Minister’s 2019 Decision).

9 On 3 September 2019, Electra sought judicial review of the Minister’s 2019 Decision in this Court (VID 965 of 2019). On 13 February 2020, Kerr J made orders by consent setting aside the Minister’s 2019 Decision and remitting the matter to the Minister for reconsideration.

10 On 5 November 2020, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) wrote to Electra and Guilin seeking submissions in relation to the reconsideration. On 26 November 2020, Electra and Guilin made a joint submission to DISER.

11 On 9 July 2021, DISER sought further submissions. On 5 August 2021, Electra and Guilin, in responding to an invitation from DISER, made joint submissions with respect to DISER’s “preliminary recommended position” concerning the reconsideration.

12 Following receipt of Electra’s submission made on 5 August 2021, DISER provided a departmental submission to the then Minister, recommending that the Minister “declare by public notice, that section 8 of the Dumping Duty Act applies to like goods that are exported to Australia by [Guilin]” (DISER Submission). The reference to “Dumping Duty Act” is a reference to the Anti-Dumping Act.

13 On 1 September 2022, the Minister, having accepted the recommendations of DISER and the relevant recommendations of the ADC in ADC Report 469 on 29 August 2022, published an Anti-Dumping Notice (ADN 2022/019), relevantly declaring under s 269TG(2) of the Customs Act that s 8 of the Anti-Dumping Act applied to the Goods exported to Australia from China and specifying a dumping margin of 2.8% (Minister’s 2022 Decision).

14 On 4 October 2022, pursuant to s 269ZZE of the Customs Act, Electra made an application to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel (Panel) for merits review of the Minister’s 2022 Decision. The grounds for review were set out in attachments to the application, being Attachments B (confidential) and C (non-confidential). There were two grounds on which Electra sought review.

15 First, Electra contended that there were errors in the determination of the dumping margin, being:

(a) an incorrect determination that Electra’s importation of the Goods from Guilin were not arm’s length transactions for the purpose of ascertaining export price of the goods during the period of investigation;

(b) an incorrect calculation of “deductive export price”, involving an incorrect and unreasonable treatment of Electra’s forex gain in the export price determination; and

(c) an incorrect determination of an amount for profit under s 269TAB(2)(c) of the Customs Act.

16 Secondly, Electra contended that the finding of dumping was “likely” not supported by the evidence or law.

17 On 22 November 2022, the Panel issued a notice pursuant to s 269ZZI stating, inter alia, that it was satisfied that the following were reasonable grounds for the Minister’s 2022 Decision not being the correct or preferable decision: (a) “[t]here were errors in the determination of the dumping margin”; and (b) “[t]he finding that dumping was likely, is not supported by evidence or law”. The Panel indicated that it proposed to conduct a review in relation to those grounds and invited submissions from interested parties.

18 On 22 December 2022, Electra provided a submission to the Panel.

19 On 19 January 2023, the Panel provided its report to the Minister, being ADRP Report 160. ADRP Report 160 found that the Minister’s 2022 Decision was the correct and preferable decision, and recommended that the Minister affirm the decision.

20 On 20 February 2023, the Minister accepted that recommendation, issuing a notice pursuant to s 269ZZM(4) affirming his previous decision (Minister’s 2023 Decision). On 21 February 2023, the Panel published ADRP Report 160 and the notice affirming the decision on its public record.

21 On 22 March 2023, Electra sought judicial review of the Minister’s 2023 Decision in this Court (NSD 257 of 2023). On 11 January 2024, Thawley J made orders by consent setting aside the decisions of the Minister and the Panel, and remitting the matter to the Panel for reconsideration. The orders include the following notation:

In making the Minister’s Decision, the Minister relied on and accepted the recommendations and reasons of the ADRP in its Report No. 160, including all material findings of fact or law set out in Report No. 160. In Report No. 160, the ADRP considered whethere [sic] section 269TAB(2)(b) of the Act includes foreign exchange gains/losses. In considering this question, being whether foreign exchange gains/losses are ‘costs, charges or expenses arising in relation to the goods after exportation’, the ADRP asked itself the wrong question, in that it erroneously considered whether foreign exchange gains/losses are ‘selling, general or administrative costs’ instead of applying the correct statutory test of ‘any costs, charges or expenses arising in relation to the goods after exportation’. The Respondents accept that the Minister erred in relying on the ADRP’s recommendations, reasons and material findings of fact and law in relation to foreign exchange gains/losses.

22 On 24 January 2024, the Panel published a notice announcing the recommencement of its review.

23 On 12 March 2024, a conference under s 269ZZHA was held with the Panel at which Electra provided additional information to the Panel. On 6 May 2024, a further conference was held with the Panel at which Electra was requested to provide further information.

24 On 30 August 2024, the Panel provided its report to the Minister, being ADRP Report 160A. ADRP Report 160A found that the Minister’s 2022 Decision was the correct and preferable decision, and recommended that the Minister affirm the Minister’s 2022 Decision.

25 On 30 September 2024, the Minister accepted the recommendation of the Panel and published a notice affirming his 2022 decision (Minister’s 2024 Decision).

26 On 10 October 2024, the Panel published on its public record ADRP Report 160A and a notice dated 30 September 2024 under s 269ZZM(4) of the Customs Act affirming the Minister’s 2022 Decision.

27 Electra now challenges the Minister’s 2024 Decision. As that decision was based on ADRP Report...