1

JeffreyM.WaincymerB.Comm.LL.B.(Melb.),LL.M.(Mon.)InternationalTradeConsultant

45VictoriaRoadNorthMalvernVIC3144AustraliaTelephone: +61395718491 Email:jeffreywaincymer@gmail.comMobile: +61418147629 Secretary:lfrick@ozemail.com.auJW:lf20May2018TheDirector,Investigations1Anti-DumpingCommissionGPOBox2013CanberraACT2601Viaemail:investigations1@adcommission.gov.auDearSir/Madam

Submission concerning Review of Anti-Dumping Measures enquiries 456 and457, Zinc Coated (Galvanised) Steel Exported from the People’s Republic ofChina,theRepublicofKoreaandTaiwan

Iact forCITICAustraliaSteelProductsPtyLtd (“CITIC”), importerofZincCoated(Galvanised) Steel (“galvanised steel”), exported from Taiwan and produced byYiehPhuiEnterpriseCo.Ltd.(“YiehPhui”).

On 5 August 2013, anti-dumping measures were placed on galvanised steelexportedfromvariouscountries,includingbyYiehPhuiandothersfromTaiwan.1Reviews365,366,367,368,371,372,374,375,and376May2017changedthevariablefactors.ThecurrentReviewsweretheninitiatedon10November2017.Anapplicationforcontinuationofthemeasureswasalsomade,Nos449and450asthesemeasuresareduetoexpireon5August2018inanyevent.

1Anti-DumpingCommission,‘DumpingCommodityRegisterforZincCoated(Galvanised)Steel,exportedfromthePeople’sRepublicofChina,theRepublicofKorea,Taiwan,RepublicofIndia,MalaysiaandSocialistRepublicofVietnam’,availableathttp://www.adcommission.gov.au/measures/Documents/Zinc%20coated%20%28galvanised%29%20steel/DCR%20-%20zinc%20coated%20%28galvanised%29%20steel.pdf(‘GalvanisedSteelDumpingRegister’,p3;seealsoFinalReportREP290andAnti-dumpingNotice2013/66)andREP193.

2

ThissubmissionseekstoshowthataproperReviewofanti-dumpingmeasuresinrespect of galvanised steel from Taiwan and in particular, as exported by YiehPhui,wouldhaveshownnodumpingandhenceno justificationforcontinuationofthemeasures.Totheextentthatthereisinfactdumping,themarginasfoundwasincorrectandthetruemarginwouldbenomorethanademinimusmargin.

WhilethissubmissionrespondstotheStatementofEssentialFacts,itdoessounderprotest,astheprimarycontentionisthattheprocessthatledtoarecommendationofapositivemarginof2.4%is invalidbyreasonoftheMinister/Commissionerandtheirdelegateshavingfailedtocomplywiths269ZHD(2)byreasonofinadvertentlyoverlookingmy previous submission. This is outlined in the following section. ThesameflawappliedtotheContinuationenquiry.

Responses are nonetheless made to protect my client’s position, given that therelevant officers indicated as to theContinuation enquiry, andby implication, thisenquiry, that their only response to the error would be to attempt to take thesubmissionintoaccountpost-SEF.Furthermore,ADRPrightsandinturnCourtrights,aredependentonmatters havingbeenput to theCommission.Once again, thesesubmissionsareputinthealternativeandunderprotest,withallrightsreservedtohavetheprocessoverturnedorthefindingsrevokedbyreasonofproceduralerror.

TheconsequencesofnotreadingCITIC’sprevioussubmission

As noted above, the primary contention is that the process is fatally flawed byreason that the Minister and/or Minister’s delegate have simply failed to read asubmission dated 18 December 2017 (“the Overlooked Review Submission”)tenderedonbehalfofCITIC.

The failure to consider that submission is not in dispute. It became clear from areadingoftheSEFthatthissubmissionhadnotbeenconsidered.TheSEFatpage14stated that “(t)he following submissions have been received from interestedparties,” referenceonly thenbeingmade toBluescopeandGuanzhouDingxinandnotCITIC.

WhenasimilarfailureastoaContinuationSubmissionwasbroughttotheattentionof Commission officers, a responsewas receivedon 4May 2018 fromRhys Piper,Director– Investigation1Anti-DumpingCommission,thesalientpartsofwhichareasfollows:

“Ihavereviewedourfilesandcanconfirmthatthepublicrecordversionofyour submissionwas received in the investigations1@adcommission.gov.auinboxon22December2017.Unfortunately,itappearstohavebeenmissedin that inbox. It also had not been published, and ought to have beenconsideredinthecontextofpreparingthestatementofessentialfacts(SEF)inrespectofthecontinuationinquiryforgalvanisedsteelandaluminiumzinccoatedsteel.

3

Iamadvisedthatthesubmissionwillbepublishedontherelevantcasepage(#449) later today. The matters raised in your submission will now beaddressedinthefinalreport.

Noting that the Commissioner’s preliminary findings have now beenpublished, your client isof coursewelcome tomake further submissions inresponseifitwishestodoso…”

Nodoubtthesameresponse is intendedastotheOverlookedReviewSubmission.While the concession as to the errorwith regard to theOverlooked ContinuationSubmissioniscommendable,thesolutionisnot.

Theimplicationsofthisoversightcanbegleanedfromotherkeyprovisions.Section269ZDstatesasfollows:

269ZDStatementofessentialfactsinrelationtoreviewofanti-dumpingmeasures

(1) IftheCommissionerpublishesanoticeundersubsection269ZC(4),(5)or(6)inrelationtothereviewofanti-dumpingmeasures,heorshemust,within110daysafterthepublicationofthenoticeorsuchlongerperiodastheMinisterallowsundersection269ZHI,placeonthepublicrecordastatementofthefacts(thestatementofessentialfacts)onwhichtheCommissionerproposestobasearecommendationtotheMinisterinrelationtothereviewofthosemeasures.

(2) Subjecttosubsection(3),informulatingthestatementofessentialfacts,theCommissioner:

(a) musthaveregardto: (i) theapplicationorrequest;and (ii) anysubmissionsrelatinggenerallytothereviewthatare

receivedbytheCommissionerwithin37daysafterthepublicationofthenoticeundersubsection269ZC(4),(5)or(6);and

(iii) anyothersubmissionreceivedbytheCommissionerrelatinggenerallytothereviewif,intheCommissioner’sopinion,havingregardtothesubmissionwouldnotpreventthetimelyplacementofthestatementofessentialfactsonthepublicrecord;and

(b) mayhaveregardtoanyothermattersthattheCommissionerconsidersrelevant.

(3) TheCommissionerisnotobligedtohaveregardtoanysubmissionsrelatinggenerallytothereviewthatarereceivedbytheCommissioneraftertheendoftheperiodreferredtoinsubparagraph(2)(a)(ii)iftodosowould,intheCommissioner’sopinion,preventthetimelyplacementofthestatementofessentialfactsonthepublicrecord.

4

Section 269ZD(2) (a)(ii) ismandatory. An SEF that has failed to comply should beseenasanullity.

Page140oftheManualreiteratesthemandatorynatureofthisobligation,stating,“(i)npreparingtheSEF,theCommissionermusthaveregardtomatterssetoutintheapplicationforanti-dumpingmeasures;submissionsreceivedwithin37daysaftertheinitiationoftheinvestigation;andanyotherrelevantmatters.”

Furthermore, section 269ZDA calls for the final recommendation by theCommissioner“afterconductingareview…”Thatcanonlybeareferencetoareviewthat is compliant with the review process. Such a recommendation is no longerpossible,astheprocesswasnotfollowed.

Nor can theerrorbe readily fixed. Even if the SEFwaswithdrawnand the inquiryrecommencedtakingnoteofmysubmission,withthebestwillintheworld,personswhohavecometoaparticularviewwouldalwaysfinditdifficultnottohaveatleasta subconscious stimulus to finding the identical outcome. So too would theircolleaguesawareofthecircumstances.Iaminnowayimpugningtheintegrityofthepersons involved. Far from it. The natural justice inherent in the right to makesubmissionsshouldnotonlybedone,butshouldbeseentobedone.Pre-judgment,albeitinadvertent,cannotbeovercome.

Furthermore,theSEFistheresultofafact-findingexercise.Theverypointofmakingsubmissionsbefore-hand,istoencouragetheCommissiontoundertakeallnecessaryinvestigationsbeforeconsideringanadverserecommendation.Thatsimplydoesnotandcannotoccurwith thepostSEFprocessand timelines.That isdoubly sogiventhat the Overlooked Submissions argued that if the Application was not to berejectedoutright,then:

“greater transparency is required, beginning with non-confidentialsummariesoftheconfidentialpartsoftheapplicationandaccessprovidedastothedataallegedtorelatetomyclients.”

Thisisdoublysowhenanimporterneedsassistancefromanexportertoeffectivelyrespond to enquiries such as these. Yet without being privy to alleged facts thatwould flow from the mandated obligation on Bluescope to provide useful non-confidential summaries of matters that are then properly investigated by theCommission and announced on the SEF, it is impossible to elicit the mostappropriateandcompellinginformationfromanexporter.Itwouldbeunreasonableto expect importers and exporters to guess at every factual permutation thatBluescopemighthaveallegedandthenpresentcogentevidenceagainsteach.

Most importantly, thekeyquestionscouldhavebeenposedtoYuehPhuiatasitevisit.Ifallrelevantquestionswereposed,thereshouldnotbeabasisforafindingofmorethandeminimusdumping.Ifthequestionswerenotposed,theprocessfailed.

For thesereasons, theCommissionerandAssistantMinistershouldnotallowforareintroduction of a margin based on this fatally flawed process, which offended

5

against the following provisions and general principles of natural justice and dueprocess.

ThelegalrequirementsforReviewofmeasures–theAustralianlegalregime

Section269ZB(2)(c)provides:

(2)Withoutotherwiselimitingthemattersthatcanberequiredbytheformtobeincluded,theapplicationmustinclude:….(c)iftheapplicationisbasedonachangeinvariablefactors—astatementoftheopinionoftheapplicantconcerning: (i)thevariablefactorsrelevanttothetakingofthemeasurestakenthathave

changed;and(ii)theamountbywhicheachsuchfactorhaschanged;and

(iii)theinformationthatestablishesthatamount;Aftertheprocessdiscussedaboveintheprevioussection,thefinaldecisionsaremadebytheMinisterunderprovisions,thepertinentpartsofwhichareasfollows:

269ZDBPowersoftheMinisterinrelationtoreviewofanti-dumpingmeasures

(1) AfterconsideringthereportoftheCommissionerandanyotherinformationthattheMinisterconsidersrelevant,theMinistermustdeclare,bynoticepublishedinaccordancewithsubsection(7),thatforthepurposesofthisActandtheDumpingDutyAct:

(a) totheextentthattheanti-dumpingmeasuresconcernedinvolvedthepublicationofadumpingdutynoticeoracountervailingdutynotice:

(i) thatthenoticeistoremainunaltered;or (ii) that,witheffectfromadatespecifiedinthedeclaration,the

noticeistakentobe,ortohavebeen,revokedeitherinrelationtoaparticularexporterortoexportersgenerallyorinrelationtoaparticularkindofgoods;or

(iii) that,witheffectfromadatespecifiedinthedeclaration,thenoticeistobetakentohaveeffectortohavehadeffect,eitherinrelationtoaparticularexporterortoexportersgenerally,asiftheMinisterhadfixeddifferentvariablefactorsinrespectofthatexporterorofexportersgenerally,relevanttothedeterminationofduty;…….

(3) If: (a) theMinistermakesadeclarationundersubsection(1);and (b) underthatdeclaration,newvariablefactorsaretakentohavebeen

fixed,inrelationtogoodsexportedtoAustraliabyaparticular

6

exporter,witheffectfromadatespecifiedinthedeclaration;(emphasisadded)

WTOauthorityregardingtheReviewofanti-dumpingduties

As Australia’s legislation is relatively sparse in detail, and as it aims to be fullycompliant with Australia’s WTO obligations, it is appropriate to turn to thoseprovisions and their jurisprudence for further guidance. Evidentiary obligationsinform the arguments below as to the inadequacy of the evidence in Bluescope’sApplication and subsequent submissions and also add to the insurmountableproblemsthatflowfromthefailuretoconsidertheoverlookedSubmissions.

Article6

Evidence

6.1 Allinterestedpartiesinananti-dumpinginvestigationshallbegivennoticeoftheinformationwhichtheauthoritiesrequireandampleopportunitytopresentinwritingallevidencewhichtheyconsiderrelevantinrespectoftheinvestigationinquestion(emphasisadded)…….

6.1.2 Subjecttotherequirementtoprotectconfidentialinformation,evidencepresentedinwritingbyoneinterestedpartyshallbemadeavailablepromptlytootherinterestedpartiesparticipatingintheinvestigation(emphasisadded).

6.2 Throughouttheanti-dumpinginvestigationallinterestedpartiesshallhaveafullopportunityforthedefenceoftheirinterests…….(emphasisadded).6.4 Theauthoritiesshallwheneverpracticableprovidetimelyopportunitiesforallinterestedpartiestoseeallinformationthatisrelevanttothepresentationoftheircases,thatisnotconfidentialasdefinedinparagraph5,andthatisusedbytheauthoritiesinananti-dumpinginvestigation,andtopreparepresentationsonthebasisofthisinformation(emphasisadded).

6.5.1 Theauthoritiesshallrequireinterestedpartiesprovidingconfidentialinformationtofurnishnon-confidentialsummariesthereof.Thesesummariesshallbeinsufficientdetailtopermitareasonableunderstandingofthesubstanceoftheinformationsubmittedinconfidence……(emphasisadded)

7

6.6 Exceptincircumstancesprovidedforinparagraph8,theauthoritiesshallduringthecourseofaninvestigationsatisfythemselvesastotheaccuracyoftheinformationsuppliedbyinterestedpartiesuponwhichtheirfindingsarebased.6.7…………..Subjecttotherequirementtoprotectconfidentialinformation,theauthoritiesshallmaketheresultsofanysuchinvestigationsavailable,orshallprovidedisclosurethereofpursuanttoparagraph9,tothefirmstowhichtheypertainandmaymakesuchresultsavailabletotheapplicants(emphasisadded).6.8 Incasesinwhichanyinterestedpartyrefusesaccessto,orotherwisedoesnotprovide,necessaryinformationwithinareasonableperiodorsignificantlyimpedestheinvestigation,preliminaryandfinaldeterminations,affirmativeornegative,maybemadeonthebasisofthefactsavailable.TheprovisionsofAnnexIIshallbeobservedintheapplicationofthisparagraph(emphasisadded).6.10 Theauthoritiesshall,asarule,determineanindividualmarginofdumpingforeachknownexporterorproducerconcernedoftheproductunderinvestigation.………(emphasisadded).11.2 Theauthoritiesshallreviewtheneedforthecontinuedimpositionoftheduty,wherewarranted,ontheirowninitiativeor,providedthatareasonableperiodoftimehaselapsedsincetheimpositionofthedefinitiveanti-dumpingduty,uponrequestbyanyinterestedpartywhichsubmitspositiveinformationsubstantiatingtheneedforareview.2Interestedpartiesshallhavetherighttorequesttheauthoritiestoexaminewhetherthecontinuedimpositionofthedutyisnecessarytooffsetdumping,whethertheinjurywouldbelikelytocontinueorrecurifthedutywereremovedorvaried,orboth.If,asaresultofthereviewunderthisparagraph,theauthoritiesdeterminethattheanti-dumpingdutyisnolongerwarranted,itshallbeterminatedimmediately(emphasisadded).11.4 TheprovisionsofArticle6regardingevidenceandprocedureshallapplytoanyreviewcarriedoutunderthisArticle.……18.1 NospecificactionagainstdumpingofexportsfromanotherMembercanbetakenexceptinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofGATT1994,asinterpretedbythisAgreement.3

ANNEXII

BESTINFORMATIONAVAILABLEINTERMSOFPARAGRAPH8OFARTICLE6

2 A determination of final liability for payment of anti-dumping duties, as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 9, does not by itself constitute a review within the meaning of this Article. 3 This is not intended to preclude action under other relevant provisions of GATT 1994, as appropriate.

8

1. Assoonaspossibleaftertheinitiationoftheinvestigation,theinvestigatingauthoritiesshouldspecifyindetailtheinformationrequiredfromanyinterestedparty,andthemannerinwhichthatinformationshouldbestructuredbytheinterestedpartyinitsresponse.Theauthoritiesshouldalsoensurethatthepartyisawarethatifinformationisnotsuppliedwithinareasonabletime,theauthoritieswillbefreetomakedeterminationsonthebasisofthefactsavailable,includingthosecontainedintheapplicationfortheinitiationoftheinvestigationbythedomesticindustry.3. Allinformationwhichisverifiable,whichisappropriatelysubmittedsothatitcanbeusedintheinvestigationwithoutunduedifficulties,whichissuppliedinatimelyfashion,and,whereapplicable,whichissuppliedinamediumorcomputerlanguagerequestedbytheauthorities,shouldbetakenintoaccountwhendeterminationsaremade………….5. Eventhoughtheinformationprovidedmaynotbeidealinallrespects,thisshouldnotjustifytheauthoritiesfromdisregardingit,providedtheinterestedpartyhasactedtothebestofitsability.