Two recent judgments of the Federal Court in Electra Cables (Aust.) Pty Limited v Minister for Industry and Innovation & Ors together form the most recent chapter in a long-running dispute over dumping duties on PVC flat electrical cables imported from China.
In the first judgment ([2025] FCA 1677), Lee J considered the five grounds of judicial review challenging decisions of the Minister, the Anti-Dumping Review Panel and the Commissioner of the Anti-Dumping Commission. Only one ground succeeded: Ground 5, concerning the correct application of s 269TAF(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The Court held that where currency conversion is required to compare the “export price” of goods with the corresponding “normal value” of like goods, the conversion must use the exchange rate applicable on the date of each individual transaction — not an averaged quarterly rate, as had been applied by the decision-makers.
In the second judgment ([2026] FCA 879), dealing with relief, the Respondents succeeded in confining the remedy. Rather than the broader remittal sought by the Applicant, the Court: (i) ordered a narrow remittal to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel limited to the s 269TAF(1) issue; and (ii) awarded the Applicant only one third of its costs, reflecting its limited success at trial. The decision is a useful illustration of how relief in judicial review proceedings may be calibrated to the scope of the error established. As the Court held at [22]: “… the relief granted should bear a rational relationship to the error established and be as practicable as possible”.
Banco barristers Tiffany Wong SC and Danielle Forrester appeared for the Respondents.