Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975

The Act primarily affects importers of goods that have been made subject to anti-dumping or countervailing measures. Once a s 269TG, 269TH, 269TJ or 269TK notice has been published, importers must pay the interim duty on entry for home consumption and may later face a demand for the difference between interim and final duty. Importers also bear the practical burden of applying for exemptions under s 8(7) or its analogues and of ensuring that securities lodged under s 42 of the Customs Act are sufficient.

Australian manufacturers and producers of “like goods” are the intended beneficiaries. The non-injurious price mechanism (repeated throughout ss 8, 9, 10 and 11) is designed to ensure that the duty imposed does not exceed the level necessary to remove injury. The small-medium enterprise (SME) carve-outs introduced in ss 8(5BAA), 8(5BAAA), 10(3CA) and 11(5A) reflect a policy preference to protect industries composed of at least two SMEs even where strict application of the non-injurious price principle might otherwise reduce the duty.

Exporters and foreign manufacturers are indirectly affected because the duty calculations turn on the export price and normal value they supply during the investigation. Where the normal value cannot be ascertained under s 269TAC(1) because of the operation of s 269TAC(2)(a)(ii) (often because of sales to a third country or lack of domestic sales), the Minister is relieved of the obligation to have regard to the non-injurious price cap (ss 8(5BAA)(a), 9(5AAA)(a), 10(3DA)(c)).

The Minister (in practice the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources) holds significant discretionary powers: determining interim duty methods, fixing final duty amounts, granting exemptions and deciding whether to publish notices. These decisions are conditioned by mandatory “have regard to” obligations that are themselves subject to exceptions where the country has not complied with Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or where the domestic industry consists of SMEs.

The Anti-Dumping Commission is the repository for published notices and exemption instruments. The requirement to publish on its website (unless commercial harm would result) affects the transparency and reviewability of Ministerial decisions.

Customs brokers and freight forwarders must advise clients of the additional duties and ensure that entry documentation correctly identifies goods subject to measures. Failure to do so can expose importers to underpayment penalties under the Customs Act.

Finally, Australian consumers are affected because the duties increase the landed cost of the subject goods, although the policy objective is that any price rise should not exceed the injury-removing level.

Importers’ duties include paying the interim duty on entry (ss 8(3), 10(3)), accounting for any additional final duty once assessed (s 8(6)), and complying with any conditions attached to an exemption. They have a right to apply for exemption under the grounds listed in s 8(7) and analogues, and the right to have any security taken under s 42 of the Customs Act applied to cap the interim duty (s 12).

The Minister’s duties are heavily prescribed. When setting interim duty methods, the Minister must have regard to the desirability of not exceeding the non-injurious price in the circumstances set out in ss 8(5B), 9(5AA), 10(3C), 10(3D) and 11(5). However, that obligation is negated if the Minister is satisfied of SME industry composition or WTO Article 25 non-compliance (ss 8(5BAA), 8(5BAAA), 10(3CA), 10(3DA), 11(5A)). The Minister must cause notices to be published on the Commission’s website subject to the commercial-harm exception. Exemptions granted on certain grounds must likewise be published (ss 8(8), 10(9)).

Rights of interested parties are largely located in the Customs Act investigation phase, but this Act gives them the derivative right to know the methodology that will be used to calculate their liability (via the published interim duty notice) and to challenge the Minister’s characterisation of facts (for example, whether “suitably equivalent goods the produce or manufacture of Australia are not reasonably available” for exemption purposes).

Section 16 creates a right to have each duty calculated and charged separately even where multiple duties apply to the same shipment. Section 21 clarifies that the special duties are additional to, and do not displace, ordinary tariff duties.

The Act itself does not create criminal offences or civil penalty provisions. Enforcement occurs through the Customs Act machinery. Underpayment of dumping or countervailing duty is treated as underpayment of duty for the purposes of ss 243U and 243V of the Customs Act, attracting penalties calculated as a multiple of the duty short-paid. Because interim duty is payable on entry, failure to pay it at the time of entry can result in the goods being held and, ultimately, in seizure.

The security-capping rule in s 12 is self-executing: if the calculated interim duty would exceed the security, it is automatically reduced to the security amount. This protects importers from disproportionate cash-flow impacts while still allowing Customs to recover up to the secured sum.

Administrative penalties can arise where importers make false or misleading statements about whether goods are subject to measures or about the applicable tariff classification used to avoid the duty. The Minister’s exemption decisions are reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 on the usual grounds, although the “have regard to” obligations are framed in a way that gives the Minister a relatively broad margin of appreciation once the jurisdictional facts (SME industry, Article 25 non-compliance) are satisfied.

The Act is expressly incorporated with and must be read as one with the Customs Act 1901 (s 6). Almost every operative provision is triggered by the existence of a notice under ss 269TG, 269TH, 269TJ or 269TK of that Act. Normal value, export price, non-injurious price and countervailable subsidy are all ascertained under Part XVB of the Customs Act (ss 269TAC, 269TACB, 269TACA). The definition of “New Zealand originating goods” is taken from Division 1E of Part VIII of the Customs Act.

The Customs Tariff Act 1995 is engaged in two ways. First, the special duties are additional to the duties imposed by that Act (s 21). Second, several exemption grounds turn on whether a Tariff Concession Order under Part XVA of the Customs Act is in force or whether Schedule 4 or Schedule 3 items of the Tariff Act apply (ss 8(7)(b)–(d), 10(8)(aa)–(c)).

The Act implements Australia’s obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The repeated references to Article 25 compliance (ss 8(5BAAA)(c), 10(3CA)(a), 10(3DA)(b)) are direct transpositions of transparency obligations. The non-injurious price concept reflects the lesser-duty rule encouraged (though not always mandated) by the WTO agreements.

Interaction with the Commerce Act 2010 (Cth) arises where anti-dumping measures and competition law overlap; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission may consider whether the continued operation of anti-dumping measures is consistent with competition policy. The International Trade Remedies Act and various free-trade agreements can modify the application of the Act by carving out certain originating goods or altering the calculation of normal value.

Although the consolidated text provided is the current compilation, the structure reveals amendments made to implement the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Act 1998, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Act (No. 1) 2013 and subsequent packages that aligned Australian law with the WTO DSU and the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.

Key recent changes visible in the text include:

• Introduction of the SME carve-out (ss 8(5BAA)(b), 9(5AAA)(b), 10(3CA)(b), 11(5A)(b)) to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller Australian industries and to avoid overly restrictive application of the lesser-duty rule.
• Explicit cross-reference to Article 25 non-compliance as a trigger relieving the Minister of the non-injurious price obligation. This was inserted to respond to transparency deficiencies by certain trading partners.
• Codification of the regulation-making power for interim duty methods (ss 8(5BB)–(5BE)) to provide greater certainty and to allow periodic updating without primary legislation.
• Uniform publication requirements on the Anti-Dumping Commission website rather than the Commonwealth Gazette, reflecting the move to digital-first government.

These changes were driven by the need to maintain WTO consistency, to address criticisms that the lesser-duty rule was being applied too rigidly against SME-heavy industries, and to give the Minister clearer statutory guidance when both dumping and subsidisation are found simultaneously (see the interaction rules in ss 8(5BA), 10(3D)).

Because the Act operates on the back of Ministerial notices made under the Customs Act, most litigation has focused on the validity of those notices rather than the tariff-imposition provisions themselves. Nevertheless, several controversies are directly relevant.

The non-injurious price “have regard to” obligations have been challenged on the basis that they are mandatory relevant considerations. Courts have generally held that once the Minister records that he or she has had regard to the desirability of not exceeding the non-injurious price, the obligation is satisfied; the weight to be given is a matter for the Minister (Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Albany International Pty Ltd (2003) FCAFC – although the precise citation is not in the source text, the structure of s 8(5B) was drafted in response to earlier Federal Court criticism of insufficient reasoning).

The exemption power in s 8(7)(c) and (d) has generated dispute over the meaning of “suitably equivalent goods … not reasonably available”. Importers have argued that “reasonably available” includes consideration of price and quality, while the Commission has sometimes taken a narrower view limited to physical availability. The publication requirement in s 8(8) has been used by applicants to argue that failure to publish an exemption instrument renders it ineffective, although the Act ties publication to specific exemption grounds only.

The interaction between ss 10(3D) and 8(5BA) when simultaneous dumping and countervailing notices are issued has produced contention about cumulative duty capping. The 2013 amendments that inserted the SME and Article 25 exceptions were partly a legislative response to industry complaints that the cumulative cap was unduly limiting remedy levels.

Controversies also surround the retrospective application of interim duty notices (s 8(5D)). Importers have argued that applying a new calculation method to goods entered before the notice date but after the original investigation period offends the rule of law. Courts have upheld the power where the statute expressly authorises an earlier application date.

Most practitioners do not realise that the Minister can set the interim duty method by reference to the non-injurious price even though the final duty under s 8(6)(b) then uses the lower of normal value and that price. This can produce a situation where the interim duty collected is higher than the final duty ultimately payable, requiring a refund. The refund mechanism, however, sits in the Customs Act and is not automatic; importers must actively claim it.

Another trap is the interaction between the SME carve-out and the Article 25 exception. The Minister need only be satisfied that one of the listed circumstances exists; there is no requirement to consider the non-injurious price at all if the domestic industry contains two SMEs. This gives the Minister considerable latitude to impose higher duties on subsidised goods from non-transparent jurisdictions when Australian SMEs are involved.

The exemption ground in s 8(7)(a) concerning “like or directly competitive goods … not offered for sale in Australia to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions having regard to the custom and usage of trade” is rarely used but extremely powerful. It allows the Minister to exempt goods where the Australian market is segmented or where the local producer does not supply all classes of customer. The phrase “having regard to the custom and usage of trade” imports a factual inquiry that is difficult to challenge on judicial review.

Section 12’s security cap is often overlooked in compliance programs. If an importer lodges a security calculated on an outdated methodology, the statute automatically limits the interim duty to that security even if the Minister later publishes a higher method. This can be used strategically but also creates risk if Customs later seeks to increase the security before final assessment.

Finally, the Act’s definition of “Tariff Concession Order” in s 8(9) still refers to the pre-1992 Commercial Tariff Concession Order regime. This is a relic that can catch practitioners who assume all concession orders are governed by the current Part XVA rules; the older orders remain relevant for the purpose of the exemption power.

Compliance begins with monitoring the Anti-Dumping Commission’s website and the Commonwealth Gazette for new s 269TG, 269TJ and related notices. Once a notice is published, importers must classify goods correctly under the relevant tariff subheading and note the additional anti-dumping or countervailing duty liability.

Systems should be updated to calculate and remit interim duty at the time of entry using the method specified in the most recent Ministerial notice under s 8(5), 10(3B) or equivalent. Where the notice refers to a formula involving non-injurious price, normal value or export price “as ascertained or last ascertained by the Minister”, compliance teams must maintain a register of those ascertained values, which are usually published in the Commission’s reports.

Applications for exemption under s 8(7) or s 10(8) should be prepared with evidence addressing each specific paragraph relied upon. If relying on the “suitably equivalent goods not reasonably available” ground, contemporaneous commercial evidence (price lists, supplier correspondence, capacity data) is essential. Exemptions should be obtained before importation where possible, because the instrument cannot apply earlier than the application date.

Securities lodged under s 42 of the Customs Act should be reviewed whenever the Minister publishes a new interim duty method. Because s 12 caps the duty at the security amount, there is a strategic advantage in ensuring securities are calibrated to the expected final duty rather than the maximum possible interim duty.

Records must be kept for at least five years because final duty assessments can occur years after importation. Where both dumping and countervailing duties apply, separate ledgers should be maintained in light of s 16. Importers who also export should be alert to the possibility that Australian anti-dumping measures on their inputs can affect their own export competitiveness, triggering the need for duty-drawback or other relief under the Customs Act.

Internal audits should test whether the SME carve-out or Article 25 non-compliance exceptions have been considered by the Minister; if the reasons for decision are silent, a request for statement of reasons under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 may be warranted before accepting that a higher duty rate applies.

In summary, compliance is not a set-and-forget exercise. It requires real-time integration of Anti-Dumping Commission publications into ERP systems, meticulous record-keeping of Ministerial notices, and a clear understanding that the Act’s apparently mechanical calculation rules are in fact overlaid with multiple layers of Ministerial discretion and statutory exceptions.