Silvery Dragon Prestressed Materials Co., Ltd. Tianjin v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Silvery Dragon Prestressed Materials Co., Ltd. Tianjin.

Respondent(s):

• Kerajaan Malaysia
• Menteri Kewangan
• Menteri Kanan Perdagangan Antarabangsa Dan Industri

• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The appellant, a foreign producer of stranded steel wires, was subjected to an anti-dumping investigation by the respondents following a petition from a Malaysian domestic industry representative.
• Following the investigation, the respondents issued a final determination and a customs order imposing an anti-dumping duty of 9.47% on the appellant’s exports for a five-year period.
• The appellant applied for judicial review to quash the duty, alleging that the respondents committed material calculation errors and failed to disclose the detailed basis of the dumping margin; the High Court dismissed the application.

• Whether the respondents breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to disclose the detailed dumping margin calculation sheet and underlying methodology to the appellant before the final determination.
• Whether the Investigating Authority acted irrationally or committed an error of law by misidentifying "net value" as "gross value" and double-counting deductions for freight and insurance, thereby inflating the dumping margin.
• Whether the failure to account for physical differences in product diameters and the making of contradictory findings regarding material injury to the domestic industry rendered the final determination unlawful.

• The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order, ruling that the non-disclosure of the detailed calculation sheet constituted a procedural impropriety as it deprived the appellant of the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the findings.
• The Court held that the determination was irrational and illegal because the Investigating Authority committed fundamental methodological errors, such as double-deducting costs from a price that was already at the ex-factory level, which distorted the final margin.
• The Court found that the respondents failed to ensure a "fair comparison" as required by law by ignoring the distinct physical characteristics of the merchandise and making inconsistent findings on material injury, necessitating the quashing of the impugned decisions.