Material injury determination criteria
Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing-duty regime requires proof of three elements before the Minister may impose measures: (1) dumping or subsidisation, (2) material injury to the Australian industry producing like goods (or a material hindrance to the establishment of such an industry), and (3) a causal link between the dumping or subsidisation and the injury. The statutory framework for the injury determination is set out in section 269TAE of the Customs Act 1901, which applies both to dumping cases (sections 269TG and 269TH) and to subsidy cases (sections 269TJ and 269TK).
Injury factors the Minister may consider. Section 269TAE(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors the Minister (and by incorporation, the Anti-Dumping Commissioner) may have regard to when determining whether material injury has been caused or threatened. These factors fall into three broad categories:
- Volume effects. The Minister may consider the quantity of goods exported to Australia during a particular period, any increase or likely increase in the quantity exported, and any change in the proportion that dumped or subsidised imports bear to total consumption of like goods in the Australian market (market share). A sustained increase in import volumes, particularly where accompanied by loss of market share for the Australian industry, is probative of volume injury.
- Price effects. The Minister may consider the effect of the dumped or subsidised imports on the prices of like goods in Australia, including whether the imports have significantly undercut the prices of the Australian industry's goods, whether the imports have depressed prices (caused actual price declines), or whether the imports have suppressed prices (prevented price increases that otherwise would have occurred, for example by forcing the Australian industry to absorb cost increases rather than passing them through). Price undercutting — the extent to which import prices fall below the Australian industry's domestic prices for like goods — is a core metric in most investigations. The Anti-Dumping Commission typically conducts product-code-level and customer-level comparisons to assess undercutting.
- Impact on the Australian industry's economic indicators. Section 269TAE(1)(g) directs the Minister to consider "any effect that the exportation of goods … has had or is likely to have on the relevant economic factors in relation to the Australian industry." While the statute does not enumerate these factors exhaustively, the Anti-Dumping Commission's practice (reflected in its Dumping and Subsidy Manual and in published reports) examines sales volumes, revenue, market share, profit and profitability, return on investment, capacity utilisation, employment, wages, productivity, inventories, and the industry's ability to raise capital. The assessment considers trends over the injury analysis period, which is typically three to five years ending with the 12-month investigation period.
The non-attribution requirement. Section 269TAE(2A) imposes a mandatory causation discipline: in making a determination of material injury, the Minister must consider whether injury is being caused or threatened by a factor other than the dumping or subsidisation. The statute lists illustrative non-dumping/non-subsidy factors:
- the volume and prices of imported like goods that are not dumped or subsidised;
- contractions in demand or changes in patterns of consumption;
- restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, foreign and Australian producers;
- developments in technology;
- the export performance and productivity of the Australian industry.
Where injury is found to be caused by one of these other factors, the Commission must not attribute that injury to the dumped or subsidised imports. The WTO Appellate Body has held that investigating authorities must "separate and distinguish" the injurious effects of dumped imports from those of other known causal factors. The Anti-Dumping Commission's Dumping and Subsidy Manual notes that dumping or subsidisation need not be the sole cause of injury; material injury caused from dumping is sufficient to make a positive finding, provided the Commission has examined and discounted other causal factors. A ministerial Direction (the Material Injury Direction) further specifies that dumping or subsidisation need not be the sole cause.
Evidentiary standard. Section 269TAE(2AA) provides that a material-injury determination "must be based on facts and not merely on allegations, conjecture or remote possibilities." The Commission relies on verified questionnaire responses, the applicant's own sales and financial data (typically verified on-site during an Australian Industry Verification), import data from the Australian Border Force and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and submissions from importers and exporters. The facts-not-conjecture rule corresponds to Article 3.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Cumulation. Section 269TAE(2C) permits the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of imports from different countries of export, but only if (a) each exportation is the subject of an investigation, (b) the dumping margin or subsidy amount for each country exceeds the de minimis threshold, (c) the volume of imports from each country is not negligible, and (d) cumulation is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imports and between the imports and the Australian-produced like goods. Cumulation is discretionary, not mandatory. The Commission typically cumulates where the imports are highly substitutable and compete in the same market segments, but will assess injury on a country-by-country basis where competitive conditions differ materially.
Threat of material injury. Section 269TAE(2B) addresses future injury. In determining whether material injury is threatened, the Minister must take account only of changes in circumstances that would make the threatened injury "foreseeable and imminent" unless dumping or countervailing measures were imposed. Relevant factors include a significant rate of increase of dumped or subsidised imports, sufficient freely disposable capacity in the exporting country or an imminent substantial increase in such capacity indicating the likelihood of substantially increased exports to Australia, and whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and would likely increase demand for further imports.
Definition of the Australian industry. The Federal Court has held that "Australian industry" means the sum total of the industry in Australia — not any part defined by geography, market segment, or other criteria — and the material-injury determination must be assessed against the Australian industry as a whole. Where the Australian industry consists of multiple producers, the Commission assesses the aggregated injury indicators; where a single producer constitutes the entire Australian industry (as in certain specialty-product cases), the Commission assesses injury to that producer.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TAE Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021), chapter on Material Injury Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – Key legislation, directions and policy Source: Ministerial Direction on Material Injury 2012, s 269TA(1), Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Normal value calculation methodology
The normal value of goods exported to Australia is the benchmark against which the export price is compared to determine whether dumping has occurred and to calculate the dumping margin. Section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901 prescribes a hierarchical cascade of methodologies for establishing normal value, beginning with the exporter's domestic selling price and falling back to constructed value or other methods when home-market sales data are unavailable or unreliable.
Primary method: domestic selling price (s 269TAC(1)). Subject to the exceptions in subsection 269TAC(2), the normal value is the price paid or payable for like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in the country of export in sales that are arm's-length transactions by the exporter or, if like goods are not sold by the exporter, by other sellers of like goods. "Ordinary course of trade" is defined in section 269TAAD and excludes sales at below-cost prices and sales to related parties that do not satisfy an arm's-length test. The Anti-Dumping Commission applies this primary method whenever the exporter has sufficient volume (≥ 5% of the volume of goods exported to Australia) of home-market sales of like goods that are ordinary-course, arm's-length transactions.
Five statutory exceptions that trigger fallback methods (s 269TAC(2)). Subsection 269TAC(1) does not apply if one of five conditions is met:
- No home-market sales of like goods by the exporter or other sellers.
- Insufficient volume — the volume of home-market sales of like goods by the exporter is less than 5% of the volume of goods exported to Australia by the exporter. This 5% threshold is a statutory bright line. The Commission may aggregate sales across models or grades if they are like goods.
- Sales not in the ordinary course of trade because of the particular market situation in the country of export. The statute does not define "particular market situation"; it has been invoked where government price controls, non-market input prices, or structural distortions render domestic prices unreliable as a normal-value benchmark.
- Like goods not sold at arm's length. Related-party sales are scrutinised under section 269TAA; if the price does not reflect an arm's-length transaction, the sale is disregarded or adjusted.
- The goods are manufactured to the order of the purchaser in accordance with the purchaser's own design (bespoke goods), provided certain further conditions are met.
When subsection 269TAC(1) does not apply, normal value is determined under one of the fallback methods in subsections 269TAC(2) or (4), or — for non-market economies or where government price controls exist — under subsection 269TAC(5D) or (6).
Fallback 1: third-country sales (s 269TAC(2)(b)). If like goods are sold for export to countries other than Australia in the ordinary course of trade and at arm's length, the normal value is the price paid or payable for such sales. This method is used when domestic sales are insufficient but representative third-country export sales exist.
Fallback 2: constructed normal value (s 269TAC(2)(c)). The normal value is the sum of:
- (i) the cost of production or manufacture of the goods in the country of export, worked out in accordance with regulations under section 269TAC(5A);
- (ii) an amount for administrative, selling and general costs (SG&A) associated with the sale of like goods by the exporter when sold in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in the country of export (or for export to third countries if no home-market sales), worked out in accordance with the regulations; and
- (iii) an amount for profit on the sale of like goods by the exporter when sold in the ordinary course of trade in the country of export or to third countries, worked out in accordance with regulations under section 269TAC(5B).
The regulations specify that the Commission must calculate SG&A and profit based on the exporter's actual experience if available, or — if the exporter has no profitable sales of like goods — on the weighted average of actual SG&A and profit realised by other exporters or producers on sales of like goods in the domestic market of the country of origin. The constructed-value method is commonly used when home-market sales volumes fall below the 5% threshold or when the exporter sells only at a loss domestically.
Fallback 3: all relevant information (s 269TAC(6)). If the Minister is satisfied that sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available to enable the normal value to be ascertained under the preceding subsections (other than subsection 269TAC(5D)), the normal value is such amount as is determined by the Minister having regard to all relevant information. This residual method grants the Minister (and by delegation, the Commissioner) broad discretion. Subsection 269TAC(7) permits the Minister to disregard any information considered unreliable. In practice, the Commission may determine normal value under subsection 269TAC(6) where an exporter fails to cooperate, submits incomplete or unverifiable data, or where the home-market data are distorted by non-market factors. For uncooperative exporters, section 269TACAB(2)(e) directs that normal value be worked out under subsection 269TAC(6); the Commission typically applies "facts available" (often the highest cooperative exporter's normal value, the applicant's estimates, or other adverse inferences).
Non-market economy and government-control provisions (s 269TAC(5D)). Subsection 269TAC(5D) applies where the Minister is satisfied that (a) the Government of the country of export has a substantial monopoly of its trade and substantially influences domestic prices, or (b) there is no substantial market for the goods under consideration in the country of export because of the government's procurement monopoly of such goods. When subsection 269TAC(5D) applies, normal value is determined having regard to all relevant information, including the methods specified in subsection 269TAC(4) (which permit use of like-goods prices in a surrogate market-economy country, constructed value in a surrogate country, or the price of like goods produced or manufactured in Australia and sold domestically). Subsection 269TAC(5F) clarifies that the Minister may use surrogate-country methodologies when subsection 269TAC(5D) is invoked. Regulations may disapply subsection 269TAC(5D) to a particular country to fulfil Australia's obligations under an international agreement (for example, pursuant to Australia's acceptance of China's WTO accession protocol, the Commission has applied subsection 269TAC(1) and other market-economy provisions to many Chinese exporters that demonstrate they operate under market conditions, rather than automatically resorting to subsection 269TAC(5D)).
Adjustments to normal value. Once a normal value is established under any of the above methods, the Commission makes adjustments to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison with the export price. Adjustments include differences in:
- Physical characteristics of the goods (if the export model differs from the domestic model in materials, dimensions, or specifications).
- Quantities sold (volume discounts).
- Levels of trade (manufacturer vs. distributor sales).
- Terms and conditions of sale (credit terms, warranties, delivery terms).
- Post-sale inland freight, insurance, handling, and packing incurred in the country of export (to bring both normal value and export price to the same ex-factory or FOB basis).
- Taxes (domestic indirect taxes on home-market sales, such as VAT or consumption tax, are typically deducted from normal value so it reflects a tax-neutral price).
The Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021) notes that adjustments must be claim-specific, fact-based, and supported by verified data; the Commission will not make adjustments for differences that are not demonstrated to affect price comparability.
Determination of the dumping margin (s 269TACB). Once export prices and corresponding normal values are established for goods exported during the investigation period, section 269TACB directs the Minister to determine whether dumping has occurred by comparison of those prices. Subsection 269TACB(2) provides three permitted comparison methodologies:
- (a) Compare the weighted average of export prices over the whole investigation period with the weighted average of corresponding normal values over the whole period (W-W comparison — the Commission's default method).
- (aa) Use the weighted-average method in respect of parts of the investigation period as if each part were the whole period (permits segmented W-W comparisons for seasonal goods or where prices trend).
- (b) Compare the export prices determined in respect of individual transactions with the corresponding normal values determined over the whole period (T-T comparison).
Subsection 269TACB(3) permits transaction-to-weighted-average comparison (zeroing) only if the Minister determines that a pattern of export prices differing significantly among different purchasers, regions, or time periods exists and an explanation for the pattern has not been provided. The use of zeroing has been limited following WTO jurisprudence and the 2012–2013 legislative reforms. The dumping margin for a given exporter is the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price (expressed as a percentage of the export price or in absolute terms); if export price equals or exceeds normal value, the dumping margin is zero and no duty is imposed on that exporter.
Multiple exporters and residual duties. Where an investigation involves many exporters, the Commission may apply sampling under section 269TACAA and calculate individual dumping margins for selected cooperative exporters. Section 269TACAB prescribes how export prices and normal values are determined for residual exporters (exporters not individually examined): the export price for a residual exporter must not be less than the weighted average of export prices for cooperative exporters from the same country, and the normal value must not be greater than the weighted average of normal values of cooperative exporters. For uncooperative exporters, the export price must not be less than the weighted average of cooperative exporters, and the normal value is determined under subsection 269TAC(6) (facts available, often resulting in a higher, adverse rate).
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TAC Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TACB Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TACAB Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021)
Application and initiation requirements
An anti-dumping or countervailing-duty investigation in Australia is initiated either by a written application from Australian industry producing like goods or by the Minister on their own initiative. In practice, the overwhelming majority of investigations begin with an industry application. The statutory framework governing applications is set out in sections 269TB and 269TC of the Customs Act 1901 (Commonwealth), which prescribe who may apply, what the application must contain, and the Commissioner's 20-day examination and initiation decision.
## Who may apply (standing)
Section 269TB(1) provides that a person representing, or representing a portion of, the Australian industry producing like goods may apply for the publication of a dumping or countervailing duty notice. The applicant must demonstrate standing — that is, that the application is supported by a sufficient portion of the Australian industry. The statute and the Anti-Dumping Commission's Dumping and Subsidy Manual set out a two-limb test:
- The applicant(s) must account for more than 50% of total Australian production of like goods by producers who have expressed either support for or opposition to the application (the "expressed view" test). Producers who remain silent or neutral are excluded from this denominator.
- The applicant(s) must account for at least 25% of total Australian production of like goods, measured against all Australian production (including silent producers). This is the minimum threshold; applications supported by less than 25% of total industry production cannot proceed.
Where the Australian industry consists of multiple producers, the application may be filed by an industry association on behalf of members, or by individual companies either jointly or through a representative. If confidentiality concerns exist among Australian producers (for example, due to competitive sensitivities), each producer may submit its injury data separately in confidential appendices, provided the overall application is coordinated and demonstrates the requisite industry support. The Commission may contact other known Australian producers or industry groups to verify the applicant's standing claims.
## Application form and content requirements
The Anti-Dumping Commission requires applicants to use Form B108 — Application for dumping and/or countervailing duties (June 2025 version as of early 2026). The form is a comprehensive template comprising several parts:
- Part A (Injury to Australian Industry) — Detailed sales, production, financial, and employment data for the Australian industry over a three-to-five-year injury analysis period. Applicants must complete standardised Excel appendices showing sales turnover, production volumes, revenue, costs, profitability, market share, capacity utilisation, and employment trends. The Commission uses these data to assess whether material injury has been caused or threatened.
- Part B (Evidence of Dumping) — Information on the alleged dumping, including the applicant's estimate of normal value in the exporting country, export prices to Australia, and the dumping margin. Applicants are expected to provide reasonably available evidence; the Commission does not require conclusive proof at the application stage, but claims must be reasonably based and supported by documentary evidence where possible (for example, export-country price lists, published financial reports of foreign producers, or invoices showing export prices).
- Part C (Evidence of Subsidisation) — If the application alleges countervailable subsidies, the applicant must describe the subsidy programmes, the legal basis (statute, regulation, or government policy document), the benefit conferred, and an estimate of the subsidy amount. This part requires less granular data than Part B, given the difficulty of obtaining foreign-government subsidy information, but the Commission expects the applicant to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the allegation.
- Goods description — A concise description of the imported goods allegedly dumped or subsidised. This description defines the scope of the investigation and any subsequent measures. The Commission advises applicants to draft the description carefully, as it determines which goods will be subject to duties. Physical characteristics, technical specifications, end uses, tariff classifications (Harmonized System and Australian statistical codes), and any exclusions must be clearly stated. The goods description becomes the "goods under consideration" for the entire investigation.
- Like goods analysis — An explanation of why the goods produced by the Australian industry are "like goods" to the imports. Section 269T(1) defines like goods as goods that are identical or alike in all respects to the goods under consideration, or — in the absence of such goods — goods that have characteristics closely resembling those of the goods under consideration. The Commission examines physical characteristics, technical properties, function and end use, consumer perceptions and substitutability, production processes, and tariff classification. Different production processes do not preclude a like-goods finding if the final products are identical or closely similar.
- Country or countries of export — The application must identify the country or countries from which the dumped or subsidised goods are exported. An applicant may name multiple countries in a single application (and the Commission may cumulate injury effects if the statutory cumulation criteria are met), but each country must be separately analysed for dumping or subsidisation.
The application must be accompanied by a non-confidential version that enables interested parties to understand the substance of the confidential information. Section 269TC requires that the non-confidential application "clearly show the reasons for seeking the publication of a dumping duty or countervailing duty notice" or, if a summary is not possible without breaching confidentiality, a statement explaining why summarisation is not possible. All confidential information must be marked "OFFICIAL USE ONLY"; the non-confidential version is marked "PUBLIC RECORD" and is published on the Commission's Electronic Public Record (EPR).
## Pre-application service
The Anti-Dumping Commission offers a pre-application advisory service to assist prospective applicants. Australian industry (or their representatives) are strongly encouraged to contact the Commission's Client Support section before lodging an application. The pre-application service includes an administrative screening of the draft application to ensure completeness, an explanation of the investigation process and timelines, and guidance on drafting the goods description and demonstrating industry support. The service is free and confidential. Early pre-application engagement typically results in a smoother and faster examination period, as the Commission can identify and address deficiencies before formal lodgement.
## Lodgement and timing
An application is formally lodged when a Commission staff member first receives it. Commission staff are available to receive applications from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) or Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) on business days. Applications are not accepted during Australian Capital Territory public holidays or the Commission's annual closedown (typically late December through early January). Applicants may lodge by email, through the Commission's secure online lodgement platform SIGBOX (recommended for large files or attachments — access must be arranged in advance by contacting the Commission), or by post. Electronic lodgement is preferred for efficiency.
## The Commissioner's 20-day examination and initiation decision (section 269TC)
Section 269TC(4) requires the Anti-Dumping Commissioner to decide, within 20 days after receiving the application, whether to reject the application under subsection 269TC(1) or (2) or to publish a notice initiating an investigation. This 20-day clock begins the day a Commission staff member first receives the application.
During the 20-day examination period, the Commissioner must be satisfied of the following matters under section 269TC(1):
- There appears to be reasonable grounds for the publication of a dumping duty notice or a countervailing duty notice in respect of goods that have been, or may be, exported to Australia. This requires prima facie evidence of dumping or subsidisation, material injury or threat of material injury, and a causal link. The standard is "reasonable grounds" — not proof beyond doubt — but the application must be reasonably based on facts and not merely on conjecture or unsupported allegations.
- The application has been made by or on behalf of the Australian industry (that is, the standing requirements described above are met).
- Like goods are produced in Australia by the applicant and, where relevant, by other Australian producers who support the application.
If the Commissioner is not satisfied of these three elements, or if the Commissioner forms the view that the application does not meet the requirements set out in the application form or directions issued under section 269TB(2), the Commissioner must reject the application under subsection 269TC(2). Common reasons for rejection include failure to demonstrate standing, insufficient evidence of dumping or injury (for example, no price undercutting or volume increase), lack of like-goods production in Australia, or materially incomplete data in the application form.
If the Commissioner is satisfied of the three elements and finds no grounds for rejection, the Commissioner initiates the investigation by publishing a public notice under subsection 269TC(4). The initiation notice is published on the Commission's website and in the Electronic Public Record. It identifies the goods under consideration (using the applicant's goods description), the country or countries of export, the investigation period for dumping/subsidisation (typically the most recent 12 months for which data are available) and the injury analysis period (typically three to five years, including the investigation period), and the deadlines for interested parties to lodge questionnaire responses and submissions (37 days from initiation for exporter and importer questionnaires).
Initiation triggers several procedural obligations: the Commission sends detailed questionnaires to known exporters, foreign producers, and Australian importers; parties have 37 days to respond; and the investigation timeline — ordinarily 155 days from initiation to a preliminary affirmative determination, or 200 days to a final determination if no preliminary determination is made, though extensions are common in complex cases — begins running.
## Withdrawal
An applicant may withdraw all or part of an application at any time by submitting Form B601 — Notice of withdrawal of an application for dumping and countervailing duties. If the application is withdrawn before the Commissioner's initiation decision, no investigation commences. If the application is withdrawn after initiation but before a final determination, the Commissioner will ordinarily terminate the investigation unless the Minister or Commissioner determines that termination would not be in the public interest.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 269TB, 269TC Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021), Chapter 3 Source: Anti-Dumping Commission — General landing page for anti-dumping and countervailing duties
Investigation timeline and procedural stages
This section previously cited several Anti-Dumping Commission and Department of Industry URLs that are now dead. Repaired below with current official links. Underlying law and procedural timeframes (as set by the Customs Act 1901 and Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, plus policy directions) remain unchanged as of June 2026. No new legislative amendments, statutory extensions, or significant policy shifts affecting the statutory investigation timeline have been enacted since late 2025.
---
An Australian anti-dumping or countervailing-duty investigation proceeds through a structured sequence of deadlines and decision milestones set out in Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901. Understanding these timelines is essential for exporters, importers, and Australian industry to lodge questionnaires, submit evidence, and participate effectively. The Anti-Dumping Commission’s published guidance describes a standard investigation running approximately 155 days from initiation to the Commissioner's report, plus 30 days for the Minister’s decision, though extensions under section 269ZHI(3) are common in complex cases.
Day 0: Application lodged The timeline begins with lodgement by industry, or (rarely) Minister-initiated investigation. Lodgement date is when Commission staff first receive the application.
Day 20: Initiation or rejection (section 269TC(4)) Within 20 days, the Commissioner must either reject the application or initiate an investigation. The initiation notice, published on the Commission’s Electronic Public Record (EPR), sets out the goods, countries of export, and relevant timeframes.
Questionnaires and responses Commission issues detailed questionnaires to known exporters, foreign producers, and importers after initiation. Standard deadline is 37 days to respond, per current ADC practice. Failure to cooperate often triggers "facts available" findings under s 269TAC(6).
On-site verifications ADC conducts fact-verification audits at exporter/producer and Australian industry sites, with non-cooperation potentially resulting in adverse inferences.
Day 60 or later: Preliminary affirmative determination (PAD) and securities (section 269TE) PAD may be made no earlier than 60 days after initiation if sufficient grounds exist, triggering securities (cash deposits or guarantees) for the goods. PAD findings, details, and legal grounding are published both on the EPR and via Anti-Dumping Notices.
Statement of Essential Facts (SEF) By Commission practice, SEF is issued by day 110 outlining preliminary findings on dumping/subsidisation, material injury, causation, and provisional margins. SEF publication triggers a 20-day comment period for all parties.
Day 155: Commissioner’s report to the Minister (section 269ZHI) Commissioner submits a detailed report by day 155 (extensions are possible and common in complex cases), recommending whether duties should be imposed. Non-confidential version is made public in the EPR after a Ministerial decision.
Minister’s decision (section 269TG(2)) Minister has 30 days to publish or decline to publish a duty notice. Duty Notices are legislative instruments; rates, goods, and coverage appear in the Gazette and on the EPR. Special circumstances may further extend this timeline.
Extensions, terminations, and real-world practice 155-day deadline is frequently extended for multi-exporter or complex subsidy cases. Commission and Minister have well-publicised protocols for requesting and granting deadline extensions. Early termination (section 269TK) is possible on withdrawal or if margins/volumes are de minimis.
Recent policy documents (e.g., December 2025 Statement of Expectations, November 2025 Statement of Intent) commit to streamlining case management, but have not substantively changed the underlying procedural law.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Part XVB, ss 269TC, 269TE, 269TG, 269ZHI, 269TK, 42 Source: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth), ss 8, 10, 12 Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – How we investigate claims of dumped and subsidised goods Source: Statement of Expectations for the Anti-Dumping Commission, 18 September 2025 Source: Statement of Intent from the Anti-Dumping Commission, 21 November 2025
Investigation timelines and procedural deadlines
Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing-duty investigations are subject to statutory timeframes designed to balance the need for thorough analysis with the imperative to resolve trade disputes expeditiously. The Customs Act 1901 prescribes mandatory deadlines for key investigation milestones, though the Minister retains discretion to grant extensions in certain circumstances. Importers, exporters, and Australian industry must track these deadlines carefully, as they govern when securities (cash deposits or bank guarantees) may be imposed, when the statement of essential facts will be published, and when final duties may take effect.
## The 155-day statutory timeframe and ministerial extensions
Section 269TC(4) of the Customs Act establishes the baseline investigation timeline. When the Anti-Dumping Commissioner initiates an investigation by publishing a notice under subsection 269TC(4), the initiation notice must state that the Commissioner will provide a report and recommendation to the Minister within 155 days after the date of initiation or such longer period as the Minister allows under section 269ZHI. The 155-day clock begins on the date the initiation notice is published on the Commission's website and in the Electronic Public Record (EPR).
In practice, most investigations exceed the 155-day statutory period. Section 269ZHI confers broad discretion on the Minister to extend any time period specified in Part XVB of the Customs Act, including the 155-day deadline for the Commissioner's final report, the deadline for the statement of essential facts (described below), and deadlines for interested parties to respond to questionnaires or lodge submissions. The Minister may grant an extension on the Commissioner's application if satisfied that the extension is warranted by the complexity of the investigation, the volume of data, cooperation difficulties, or other practical considerations.
Extensions are commonplace in multi-country investigations, in investigations involving complex subsidy programmes or non-market-economy methodologies, and where exporters request (and the Commissioner grants) extensions of questionnaire response deadlines. When the Minister grants an extension under section 269ZHI, the Commission publishes a public notice on the EPR specifying the revised deadline. Interested parties should monitor the EPR for extension notices throughout the investigation.
The 200-day benchmark is often cited in Commission guidance as a typical timeframe for investigations that do not involve a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD); where a PAD is made and securities are imposed, the timeframe may stretch to 240–270 days or longer to allow for additional verification, rebuttal submissions on the statement of essential facts, and final analysis. The December 2021 Dumping and Subsidy Manual notes that the Commission aims to complete straightforward, single-country investigations within the 155-day statutory period, but acknowledges that extensions are frequently necessary.
## Questionnaire response deadline: 37 days from initiation
The initiation notice invites interested parties—exporters, foreign producers, Australian importers, and other stakeholders—to lodge submissions and, where applicable, complete detailed questionnaires. Section 269TC(4)(c) specifies that the initiation notice must invite interested parties to lodge submissions within 37 days after the date of initiation. This 37-day deadline applies both to narrative submissions concerning the merits of the application and to the exporter, foreign-government (for subsidy cases), and importer questionnaires that the Commission sends to known parties.
The 37-day period is a statutory minimum. Exporters and importers frequently request extensions of the questionnaire deadline by submitting a written request to the Commission demonstrating that a longer period is reasonably required and that allowing the extension will be practicable in the circumstances. Section 269TC(9) authorises the Commissioner to grant such extensions. Extensions of 14 to 30 days are common, particularly for exporters with complex corporate structures, multiple production facilities, or substantial export volumes requiring detailed cost-allocation analysis. The Commission typically grants one extension per party; subsequent extension requests are scrutinised more closely.
Consequences of late or incomplete responses. If an exporter fails to submit a questionnaire response by the deadline (including any granted extension), or submits a response that is materially incomplete or unverifiable, the Commission may classify the exporter as an uncooperative exporter under section 269TACAB. For uncooperative exporters, the Commission determines the export price and normal value using "facts available" under subsection 269TAC(6), often resulting in significantly higher dumping margins. The Commission may apply adverse inferences, such as using the highest dumping margin calculated for a cooperative exporter from the same country, the applicant's estimates, or other information on the record. Uncooperative-exporter status also disqualifies the exporter from certain favourable procedural rights, such as new-exporter reviews.
Australian importers who fail to respond to the importer questionnaire do not face direct adverse inferences in the dumping or subsidy calculation (as their data are not used to calculate export prices), but their non-cooperation may limit their ability to rebut the Australian industry's injury claims and may reduce the Commission's consideration of any claimed public-interest factors favouring importers or downstream users.
## Preliminary affirmative determination (PAD): no earlier than day 60
Section 269TD(1) permits the Commissioner to make a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD) at any time not earlier than 60 days after the date of initiation if the Commissioner is satisfied that there appears to be sufficient grounds for the publication of a dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice, or that there will be sufficient grounds for publication after importation of the goods. The 60-day floor ensures that exporters and importers have a minimum period to respond to questionnaires and lodge initial submissions before provisional measures may be imposed.
A PAD is a preliminary finding, based on the best information available to the Commissioner at that stage of the investigation, that dumping or subsidisation, material injury, and causation are likely established. The PAD is not a final determination; the Commissioner's analysis continues, and the findings may change based on further information, verification, or rebuttal submissions.
Imposition of securities (cash deposits or bank guarantees). If the Commissioner makes a PAD, subsection 269TD(4)(b) authorises the Commonwealth to require and take securities under section 42 of the Customs Act in respect of interim duty that may become payable if the Minister ultimately publishes a dumping duty or countervailing duty notice. Securities may be required "at the time that determination is made or at any later time during the investigation" if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent material injury to the Australian industry occurring while the investigation continues.
In practice, when a PAD is made, the Commission recommends to the Minister that securities be imposed, and the Minister typically accepts the recommendation. Securities are imposed in the form of cash deposits (paid at the time of import entry) or bank guarantees, calculated as a percentage of the customs value (ad valorem rate) or as a fixed dollar amount per unit (specific or combined rate), corresponding to the preliminary dumping margin or subsidy amount. The security rate is exporter-specific for cooperative exporters individually examined by the Commission, and a residual rate applies to all other exporters from the subject country.
Timing of PAD in practice. PADs are discretionary; the Commissioner is not required to make a PAD in every investigation. The Commission's practice, as articulated in the Customs (Preliminary Affirmative Determinations) Direction 2015 (a ministerial Direction binding on the Commissioner), is to make a PAD where the Commissioner is satisfied, on a preliminary basis, that sufficient grounds exist and that imposition of securities is necessary to prevent material injury. In straightforward cases with clear evidence of significant dumping margins and price undercutting, a PAD may be made around day 90 to day 110. In complex cases, or where the Commissioner wishes to complete verification visits or obtain additional information before making a preliminary finding, the PAD may be delayed or not made at all. If no PAD is made, no securities are imposed during the investigation, and importers face no cash-deposit liability unless and until the Minister publishes a final dumping duty or countervailing duty notice.
The Direction requires the Commissioner to reconsider whether to make a PAD at least once before publishing the statement of essential facts (described below). If the Commissioner decides not to make a PAD at day 60, the Commission publishes a status report explaining the reasons (typically, insufficient verified information at that stage), and the PAD question is revisited as the investigation progresses.
## Statement of essential facts (SEF): target 110 days from initiation
The statement of essential facts (SEF) is a detailed public document setting out the facts on which the Commissioner proposes to base the recommendation to the Minister. Section 269TDAA (for original investigations) requires the Commissioner to place the SEF on the public record and specifies that interested parties must be given at least 20 days to lodge submissions in response. The statute does not mandate a fixed deadline for publishing the SEF, but the Dumping and Subsidy Manual and recent Commission practice aim to publish the SEF approximately 110 days after initiation in continuation inquiries (under section 269ZHE, which governs continuation-inquiry SEFs) and a similar timeframe in original investigations, subject to ministerial extensions under section 269ZHI.
The SEF is the Commission's most important procedural checkpoint. It discloses:
- The preliminary dumping margins or subsidy amounts for each examined exporter, the calculation methodology (normal value and export price), and any adjustments made.
- The preliminary injury findings, including volume effects, price undercutting/depression/suppression, and the impact on the Australian industry's economic indicators (sales, revenue, profit, capacity utilisation, employment).
- The preliminary causation analysis, addressing whether injury is caused by dumped or subsidised imports or by other factors (non-dumping imports, contraction in demand, technological change, export performance).
- The form of duty recommended (ad valorem, specific, or combined; fixed duty, floor price, or variable factor), if the Commissioner's preliminary view is that a dumping duty or countervailing duty notice should be published.
- Any proposed lesser-duty findings or public-interest considerations.
All data in the SEF are based on verified questionnaire responses, the Commission's on-site verification visits (conducted for selected exporters and for the Australian industry), import data from the Australian Border Force, and submissions on the public record. Confidential data are reported in ranges or summarised to prevent disclosure of business-confidential information; the full confidential analysis is in a separate confidential SEF provided only to parties that have signed a confidentiality undertaking and been granted access.
Rebuttal period: minimum 20 days. Section 269TDAA(2) requires that interested parties be given a period of at least 20 days to respond to the SEF. The Commission typically allows 20 to 30 days for SEF submissions. This is the final opportunity for exporters to challenge the Commission's dumping-margin calculations, for the Australian industry to rebut claims that injury is caused by other factors, and for importers to argue that the lesser duty should apply or that imposition of measures is not in the public interest. SEF submissions are heavily fact-intensive and are the most important substantive filings in the investigation after the initial questionnaire responses.
The Commission may, after receiving and considering SEF submissions, conduct further analysis, request additional information, or adjust its findings. Any material changes to the facts or methodology after the SEF must be disclosed in a supplementary or revised SEF or in the final report itself, with an opportunity for comment if the change is significant.
## Final report and ministerial decision: ordinarily by day 155 (or extended deadline)
After considering all SEF submissions, the Commissioner prepares a final report and recommendation to the Minister. The report sets out the Commissioner's final findings on dumping or subsidisation, material injury, causation, and the recommended form and level of duty (or a recommendation to terminate the investigation without measures). The report is confidential to the Minister; a public version (the "final report") is published on the EPR after the Minister makes a decision.
Under section 269TG (for dumping) and section 269TJ (for subsidisation), the Minister must decide whether to publish a dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice, accept an undertaking from exporters in lieu of duties, or take no action. The Minister's decision is not bound by the Commissioner's recommendation, though in practice the Minister accepts the recommendation in the substantial majority of cases. The Minister has 30 days after receiving the Commissioner's report to make a decision, though this period is not strictly enforced by statute.
Publication of the notice and effective date of duties. If the Minister decides to impose measures, the Minister publishes a dumping duty notice (subsection 269TG(1) or (2)) or a countervailing duty notice (subsection 269TJ(1) or (2)) in the Gazette and on the Commission's website. The notice specifies the goods subject to measures, the countries of export, the duty rates (by exporter or residual), and the effective date. Duties apply prospectively from the date of the notice, and—critically—interim dumping duty or interim countervailing duty is imposed retroactively on all goods imported during the period from the date securities were required (i.e., the PAD date) to the date of the Minister's notice. Section 8 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 imposes dumping duty, and section 10 imposes countervailing duty, by virtue of the Minister's notice under section 269TG or 269TJ of the Customs Act.
For importers who paid securities during the investigation, those securities are converted to interim duty once the Minister publishes the notice. For importers who did not pay securities (because no PAD was made, or because they imported before the PAD), dumping duty or countervailing duty is payable only on goods entered for home consumption on or after the date of the Minister's notice (unless the Minister specifies an earlier date in the notice, which is rare).
Duration of measures and sunset reviews. Anti-dumping and countervailing measures remain in force until revoked or until they expire at the end of the five-year period from the date of publication of the notice, unless the Minister determines, following a continuation inquiry under Division 6A (sections 269ZDB–269ZHG), that expiry of the measures would lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and material injury. Continuation inquiries (commonly called "sunset reviews") are initiated in the final year of the five-year period; the procedural timelines for continuation inquiries are governed by section 269ZHI and are similar to those for original investigations, though the injury analysis focuses on threat of injury upon expiry rather than current injury.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TC(4) Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TD Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TDAA Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269ZHI Source: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth), ss 8, 10 Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021), Chapter 2
Duration and continuation of measures
Australia’s anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) are time-limited per statute. Unless extended, these measures expire five years after the original publication of a dumping duty or countervailing duty notice (sections 269TG, 269TJ), implementing Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
Statutory expiry and the Dumping Commodity Register: Measures remain in force “for five years after the day on which the notice is published in the Gazette” (s 269TG(6), s 269TJ(6)). Unless continued per the procedures below, they expire automatically on the specified date. Expired measures are deleted from the Anti-Dumping Commission’s Dumping Commodity Register (DCR), per published practice (Dumping and Subsidy Manual, ch. 10).
Continuation inquiries (Division 6A, Part XVB): The law prescribes mandatory review opportunities to avoid lapses where dumping or material injury are likely to recur. At least nine months before expiry, the Anti-Dumping Commission must publish an invitation for continuation applications (s 269ZHF(1AA); Dumping and Subsidy Manual, ch. 10). Australian producers have 60 days to apply for continuation (s 269ZHF(1B)-(2)), using prescribed forms (currently Form B600). Failure to apply within this window causes expiry by operation of law.
To initiate a continuation inquiry, applicants must: (1) demonstrate standing (>50% of production of like goods by expressed support, at least 25% of total industry production – see ss 269T(1), 269TB and 269ZHF); and (2) provide evidence that expiry would likely result in continued or recurrent dumping or subsidisation and material injury. The evidentiary standard is “facts and not conjecture” (s 269TAE(2AA)). Typical evidence cited by the Commission includes import and price data, capacity/utilisation analysis, and market assessments (Manual, ch. 10).
Inquiry procedure and test: If the application is accepted, the Commissioner must conduct and complete the inquiry, including: (a) distributing exporter/importer questionnaires, (b) conducting verification, (c) publishing a Statement of Essential Facts, and (d) reporting findings and recommendation to the Minister (s 269ZHG). The inquiry timing is not subject to the standard 155-day investigation limit (contrast s 269ZHI(4A)); continuation reviews often take 12–18 months (Manual, ch. 10). The core test: whether expiry of measures “would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and of the material injury” (s 269ZHG(1)(b)).
The Commission analyses: (i) whether dumping or subsidisation persists while measures are in force (Manual, ch. 10, 10.5.1); (ii) if not, whether removal would likely prompt renewed dumping/subsidisation or injury (Manual, 10.5.2); and (iii) the current state and vulnerability of the domestic industry. The Commission’s approach is shaped by both s 269ZHG and Manual guidance, drawing in part on international practice and WTO panel interpretations, but ultimate controlling law is the Australian statute.
Ministerial decision and consequences: The Minister must accept, vary, or reject the Commissioner’s recommendation (s 269ZHG(4)). If continued, measures remain in force for a further five years from the original expiry date. If not, they expire, and they may only be reimposed through a new full investigation under Part XVB (Manual, ch. 10.7).
Interim and new-shipper reviews: Separate review and reset tracks exist. Section 269ZDB (interim review) permits midcycle reconsideration or adjustment on application or Ministerial initiative, for changed circumstances on duty rates, variable factors, or ongoing dumping/injury. Section 269ZE (new-shipper review) enables exporters not originally investigated to qualify for individual rates if not related to any previously examined exporter. These are detailed in the Manual, ch. 12–13.
Circumvention and anti-absorption provisions: Divisions 5 and 5A (ss 269ZDBB–269ZDBE, 269ZDB) address evasions and duty absorption, and are available throughout the life of a measure. The Commission’s Manual (ch. 15) details practical investigational procedures and evidentiary demands for such inquiries.
Pinpoint statutory references and clarity: Unless otherwise noted, the timelines, expiration, and substantive tests above are statutory. Procedural details (like forms and public record practice) follow the latest published Dumping and Subsidy Manual (Dec 2021, ch. 10) and Commission guidance, both subject to Ministerial statements of expectation (e.g., Dec 2025) but subordinate to statute.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth) ss 269TG, 269TJ, 269ZHF–269ZHG, 269ZDB, 269ZE, 269ZDBB–269ZDBE Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – How we apply for and review measures Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual, Dec 2021, ch. 10, 12–13, 15
Investigation timeline and procedural deadlines
Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing-duty investigations proceed on a statutory timeline set by Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901 (Commonwealth), with key deadlines that determine when exporters must respond to questionnaires, when the Anti-Dumping Commissioner may impose provisional measures (securities), and when the Minister must decide whether to publish final duty notices. These milestones are critical for all interested parties — exporters and foreign producers facing potential duties, importers planning cash flow, and the Australian industry awaiting interim relief.
## Day 0: Initiation
The investigation formally begins when the Anti-Dumping Commissioner publishes a public notice under section 269TC(4) of the Customs Act. The 20-day examination period (during which the Commissioner must decide whether to reject or initiate the application under section 269TC) does not count toward the investigation timeline. "Day 0" is the date of the initiation notice. The notice identifies the goods under consideration, the country or countries of export, the investigation period (ordinarily the most recent 12 months for which data are available), and the injury analysis period (ordinarily three to five years including the investigation period).
Upon initiation, the Commission sends detailed questionnaires to all known exporters, foreign producers, and Australian importers whose contact details can be ascertained from import data, the application, or other sources. The Commission publishes a non-confidential version of the application on its Electronic Public Record (EPR).
## Day 37: Questionnaire responses due (administrative deadline)
The Anti-Dumping Commission's published guidance states that interested parties have 37 days from the date of initiation to lodge responses to the exporter questionnaire, the importer questionnaire, or submissions in response to the application. This deadline is an administrative practice set by the Commission and appears in the initiation notice and in each questionnaire issued under a given investigation.
Exporters and foreign producers who fail to respond by the stated deadline, or who submit incomplete or unverifiable responses, face the risk that the Commissioner will determine normal value and export price on the basis of "facts available" under section 269TAC(6) and section 269TACAB(2)(e) of the Customs Act. In practice, facts-available determinations often result in an adverse dumping margin calculated from the highest cooperative exporter's data, the applicant's allegations, or other information on the record, which can be substantially higher than an exporter-specific calculation based on verified data.
The Commission will consider written requests for an extension to the questionnaire deadline, provided the request is lodged before the original due date and sets out the reasons and the period of extension sought. Requests are granted at the Commission's discretion. A summary of any extension request and the Commission's decision is published on the public record.
## Day 60: Earliest date for a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD)
Section 269TD(1) of the Customs Act permits the Commissioner to make a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD) at any time not earlier than 60 days after initiation if the Commissioner is satisfied, based on the evidence available at that time, that there appear to be sufficient grounds for the publication of a dumping duty notice or a countervailing duty notice. There is no latest statutory deadline for a PAD within the investigation period, though a ministerial Direction requires the Commissioner to reconsider whether to make a PAD at least once before publishing the statement of essential facts (discussed below).
A PAD is the procedural trigger for the imposition of securities (cash deposits or bank guarantees) on imports of the goods under consideration. Under section 269TD(3) and section 42 of the Customs Act, once a PAD is made, the Comptroller-General of Customs (within the Australian Border Force) must require importers to provide security worked out in accordance with the regulations. Securities are intended to prevent further material injury to the Australian industry during the remainder of the investigation. They do not constitute final duties; they are held on account and may be converted to interim dumping duty or countervailing duty only if the Minister subsequently decides to publish a duty notice.
If the Commissioner is not yet satisfied that sufficient grounds exist, the Commissioner publishes a status report on or shortly after day 60 explaining why a PAD has not been made. The status report does not preclude a later PAD; the Commissioner may make a PAD at any subsequent time during the investigation if new evidence or further analysis supports it.
## Day 110: Statement of essential facts (SEF) due
Section 269TDAA of the Customs Act requires the Commissioner to place on the public record a statement of essential facts (SEF) setting out the essential facts on which the Commissioner proposes to base a recommendation to the Minister. The SEF must be published not later than 110 days after the initiation of the investigation, unless the Minister grants an extension of time.
The SEF is the Commission's preliminary findings document. It sets out the Commission's analysis of dumping or subsidisation (including preliminary normal values, export prices, and dumping margins for each cooperative exporter), the material injury determination (volume effects, price effects, impact on the Australian industry, and causation), and — if relevant — the non-injurious price and the proposed form of measures. The SEF does not include a final recommendation; its purpose is to provide interested parties with the evidentiary and analytical basis for the Commission's preliminary conclusions before the Commissioner finalises the report to the Minister.
Section 269TC(4)(f) provides that the initiation notice must invite interested parties to lodge submissions in response to the SEF within 20 days of the SEF being placed on the public record. On a standard (no-extension) timeline, that means submissions are due by day 130 of the investigation. The Commission must consider all timely SEF responses before finalising its report to the Minister. The Commission may also schedule a public hearing (if requested by an interested party and considered appropriate by the Commissioner) at which parties may make oral submissions; transcripts of public hearings are placed on the EPR.
## Day 155: Commissioner's final report due
Section 269TEA(1) of the Customs Act requires the Commissioner to give the Minister a report setting out the Commissioner's conclusions and recommendations concerning the publication of a dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice not later than 155 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. This 155-day deadline applies when a PAD has been made during the investigation. If no PAD has been made, the deadline under section 269TEA(2) is extended to 200 days after initiation.
The Commissioner may apply to the Minister for an extension to the day-155 (or day-200) deadline. Extensions are granted at the Minister's discretion. The Commission's Statement of Principles – Requests for Extensions of Time (published on the Commission's website) sets out the criteria for extensions, which are ordinarily granted only where the Commissioner can demonstrate that circumstances beyond the Commission's control — such as exporter non-cooperation requiring facts-available determinations, verification delays, or the emergence of new issues during the investigation — have prevented timely completion. Extension requests and grants are published on the EPR.
The final report is provided to the Minister in confidence. A non-confidential version of the final report is placed on the public record only after the Minister announces a decision.
## Ministerial decision (post day 155)
Upon receiving the Commissioner's report, the Minister must decide whether to publish a dumping duty notice under section 269TG or a countervailing duty notice under section 269TJ of the Customs Act, or to decline to publish a notice. There is no statutory deadline binding the Minister's decision, though administrative practice is that the Minister decides within 30 days of receiving the report. The decision is announced by publication of an Anti-Dumping Notice (ADN) on the Commission's website and the EPR; if the Minister decides to impose measures, the ADN is accompanied by the dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice, which is a legislative instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.
If the Minister decides to publish a duty notice, interim dumping duty (IDD) or interim countervailing duty (ICD) becomes payable on all imports of the goods under consideration from the relevant country and exporter from the date the duty notice is published. Section 8(5B) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 provides that the IDD imposed by the Minister cannot exceed the dumping margin determined for the relevant exporter.
For imports in respect of which securities were taken (that is, goods entered after the PAD date), the securities are converted to interim duty; the amount of duty converted cannot exceed the amount of the security taken (section 8(5C) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975). For goods that were exported to Australia before a duty notice is published but enter Australia after the notice is published ("goods on the water"), the duty rate applicable is the rate that applied on the date of export; if the goods were exported before the PAD date, no duty applies (this rule is implied by the structure of section 269TD and the interaction with sections 8 and 10 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act, and is stated in Commission guidance).
## Extensions and timeline reality
While the Customs Act contemplates a 155-day investigation (or 200 days if no PAD is made), the December 2025 Statement of Expectations for the Anti-Dumping Commission (a policy document issued by the Minister for Industry and Science) notes that "current case lengths are too long" and expresses concern that material injury to Australian industries is being exacerbated by lengthy investigation timelines. The Minister directed the Commission to apply additional funding to reduce case timelines and enhance efficiency, with an emphasis on more streamlined processes.
Nonetheless, extensions to the day-155 deadline are granted in many investigations, particularly those involving complex subsidy allegations, non-market-economy issues under section 269TAC(5D), multiple countries, or a large number of exporters subject to sampling under section 269TACAA.
## Post-investigation: continuation inquiries and reviews
Anti-dumping and countervailing measures do not remain in force indefinitely. Unless extended by a continuation inquiry (also called a sunset review), measures expire five years after their original publication. Before the five-year anniversary, the Australian industry or other interested party may apply for a continuation inquiry under section 269ZHF of the Customs Act; the Commissioner conducts the inquiry and recommends to the Minister whether the measures should remain in force (with or without modification) for a further period. The investigation procedures and timelines for continuation inquiries are set out in Division 6A of Part XVB.
Other post-imposition reviews available under Part XVB include review of measures under Division 5 (to recalculate duty rates in light of changed circumstances), new shipper reviews (to establish an individual rate for an exporter that did not export during the original investigation period), variable factors reviews (to adjust normal value for fluctuating input costs), and anti-circumvention inquiries under Division 5A (to extend measures to slightly modified goods or goods transhipped through third countries to avoid duties).
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Part XVB, ss 269TC, 269TD, 269TDAA, 269TEA, 269ZHF Source: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth), ss 8, 10 Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – How we investigate claims of dumped and subsidised goods Source: Statement of Expectations for the Anti-Dumping Commission (December 2025)
Application of the lesser duty rule in Australian anti-dumping and countervailing measures
Australia’s anti-dumping and countervailing-duty system recognizes—but is not strictly bound by—the lesser duty rule (“LDR”), a WTO principle that, where a lower duty than the dumping/subsidy margin would suffice to remove injury to domestic industry, authorities should impose the lesser amount. Article 9.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19.2 of the SCM Agreement set this out as a "desirability" rather than a binding requirement. Australia’s legislative regime leaves LDR application to ministerial discretion.
Statutory framework. Under section 269TG(3) of the Customs Act 1901, the Minister may require that the dumping duty or countervailing duty imposed is less than the full margin (i.e., the calculated dumping or subsidy margin) if satisfied that a lesser duty would remove the injury caused by dumping or subsidisation. There is no statutory obligation to apply the LDR, but the Act gives the Minister explicit discretion. The Anti-Dumping Commission must, however, calculate and report the “non-injurious price” (NIP)—the price at which the dumped or subsidised imports would not injure the Australian industry—enabling the Minister to consider LDR. If the injury margin (difference between the export price and the NIP) is lower than the dumping/subsidy margin, the Minister may, but need not, set the duty at that lower injury margin.
Practical application. In practice, the Minister has seldom exercised the LDR discretion, tending to impose duties at the full dumping or subsidy margin except in specific cases where a lower margin would suffice to remove injury, as documented in several Commission public reports. The Commission’s Dumping and Subsidy Manual (2021, Ch. 4) explains the methodology for determining the NIP and assessing whether injury would be removed at a lesser duty. This approach is consistent with WTO panel guidance in cases such as EU — Tube or Pipe Fittings (DS219) and China — GOES (DS414), which allow for policy latitude.
Recent policy direction. As of September 2025, the Minister’s Statement of Expectations instructs the Commission to “rigorously assess the non-injurious price and report to me when a lesser duty would suffice to remedy injury,” but leaves decision latitude. No legislative amendments in 2025–26 have altered the discretionary nature of Australia’s LDR implementation.
Summary. The Minister has power—but not a legal duty—to apply LDR in each case. Unless the Minister explicitly finds that a lesser duty will remedy injury, anti-dumping/countervailing duties are typically imposed at the full margin. Practitioners should monitor ministerial notices and the Anti-Dumping Commission’s disclosed injury margin calculations for each determination.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TG(3) Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual, December 2021, Chapter 4 Source: Statement of Expectations for the Anti-Dumping Commission, September 2025
Anti-circumvention inquiries and measures under Australian law
Australia’s trade-remedies regime includes dedicated procedures to address circumvention—the deliberate evasion of anti-dumping or countervailing duties through minor modifications, transshipment, later assembly, or other means designed to defeat the remedial effect of measures. The core legal basis is found in Division 5A of Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901, introduced by the Customs Amendment (Anti-Circumvention) Act 2013 (Cth), and supplemented by sections in the Anti-Dumping Commission's Dumping and Subsidy Manual (2021, ch. 15).
## Statutory triggers and initiation
Circumvention action may be initiated by an application from the Australian industry, the Minister, or—since 2023—by the Commissioner on their own initiative (section 269ZDBB). Circumvention is defined to include:
- Minor alterations to goods (for example, slightly changing dimensions or technical characteristics to fall outside the original goods description) (269ZDBC),
- Assembling parts in a way not covered by current measures (for example, later-stage assembly in a third country or Australia itself) (269ZDBD),
- Transshipping through a third country to mask the true country of origin/export (269ZDBE),
- Use of third-party entities to obscure the exporter’s or manufacturer’s identity.
The Act establishes that these forms may be considered circumvention if their principal effect is to undermine the remedial purpose of measures and they lack economic justification other than duty avoidance.
## Inquiry procedure and outcomes
On initiation, the Commissioner conducts an inquiry largely mirroring an original dumping/subsidy investigation: affected parties are notified, relevant questionnaires are issued, and the evidentiary standard is “facts, not conjecture” (269ZDBB(6)). The Commissioner must consider: (1) whether circumvention is occurring or likely; (2) whether such conduct undermines the remedial effect of measures; and (3) whether extension of measures to the goods in question would restore the remedy.
The Commissioner's report (269ZDBB(9)-(10)) recommends whether the Minister should extend measures—by notice in the Gazette—either by varying the goods description (to explicitly capture modified goods), varying the duty rate, or otherwise enlarging the scope to include circumvention practices. Measures may be applied retroactively to goods entered during the inquiry period if warranted by the findings (269ZDBB(6A)-(6B)).
## Notable procedural features and practical impacts
- Circumvention inquiries may proceed in parallel to reviews or continuation inquiries (sunset reviews) (269ZDBB(7)).
- The Minister may decide not to extend measures if doing so would be disproportionate or would capture truly distinct products (269ZDBB(11)).
- Judicial review of circumvention decisions is available via the Federal Court.
Practitioners advising importers or Australian producers should note that the Commission actively monitors for circumvention, particularly as duty avoidance practices evolve. The Dumping Commodity Register (DCR) is updated when scope is expanded following a circumvention finding. Importers risk retroactive duty liability—and administrative penalties—if they structure imports to evade measures that are subsequently extended by a circumvention inquiry.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Division 5A, ss 269ZDBB–269ZDBE Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual, December 2021, Chapter 15
Anti-Dumping Review Panel and judicial review of trade-remedies decisions in Australia
The Anti-Dumping Review Panel (ADRP) provides the main administrative appeal for most anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions in Australia. Its statutory authority is set out in Division 9 of Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901 (ss 269ZZK–269ZZT). Any “interested party”—such as an importer, foreign exporter, or Australian producer—may apply to review certain listed decisions of the Minister or the Anti-Dumping Commissioner within 30 days of a notification (s 269ZZL).
Reviewable decisions under s 269ZZK include:
- Whether to publish, or not publish, a dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice (ss 269TG, 269TJ)
- The amount/rate of dumping or countervailing duty
- Notice to accept, reject, or revoke an undertaking (ss 269TG, 269TJ, 269TGAA)
- Decisions on continuation, variation, or revocation following an inquiry (e.g., continuation inquiries under Division 6A)
Full statutory details are in s 269ZZK of the Customs Act and Schedule 1AA of the Customs Regulation 2015. Some decisions (e.g., initiation or non-injury findings) are expressly excluded and not reviewable.
Procedural mechanics:
- The application must be made in writing and be accompanied by the prescribed fee and supporting information (s 269ZZL; ADRP Process Page).
- The ADRP undertakes a de novo merits review: it considers afresh the evidence and submissions that were before the original decision-maker. The Panel may affirm, vary, or set aside the decision, or remit the matter for reconsideration (Customs Act, s 269ZZR).
- New evidence is generally not admitted unless the Panel permits it under regulations or in procedural fairness circumstances (see ADRP Review Process and Customs Regulation 2015, Sch 1AA).
- All parties receive the Panel’s written reasons. Decisions are published online and become effective as if made by the Minister/Commissioner (s 269ZZS).
The ADRP’s full list of reviewable decisions and the procedural guidelines are published at: https://www.industry.gov.au/trade/anti-dumping-review-panel
Judicial review in the Federal Court If dissatisfied with an ADRP outcome, or with administrative decisions not eligible for ADRP review, parties may apply to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) within 28 days of the decision (Minister’s Public Notice, Sept 2024). Judicial review is confined to legal errors: jurisdiction, process, or natural justice breaches—no rehearing of the facts. Remedies include setting aside, remitting, or—very rarely—substituting a decision. Technical grounds are strictly applied: missing the statutory deadline usually bars the challenge (Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s 11; ADRP Review Process Page).
2026 currency: As of June 2026, the ADRP remains the main avenue for merits review and the procedure/timelines above remain current—no legislative overhaul is pending. Practitioners should always verify the standing statutory deadlines, as extensions are rare.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Div. 9, ss 269ZZK–269ZZT Source: Anti-Dumping Review Panel Review Process (industry.gov.au) Source: Minister's Public Notice, September 2024
Safeguard measures: procedure, criteria, and current administering authority
Australia's safeguard measures are emergency trade remedies to protect domestic industries from serious injury due to unforeseen import surges. The statutory framework is implemented pursuant to Australia’s WTO obligations (Agreement on Safeguards, 1994) and codified in Division 2B (ss 269TAQ–269TAX) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth).
Initiation and statutory criteria. A safeguard investigation may be initiated, upon application or Ministerial request, where there is objective evidence of increased imports and consequent or threatened serious injury to a domestic industry. "Serious injury" is defined by s 269TAU as significant overall impairment, with analysis grounded in commercial and economic data. The administering authority is required to:
- Determine that the import increase is recent and significant;
- Establish a causal link between imports and serious injury (or threat), relying on supporting data and analysis;
- Apply non-attribution rules (s 269TAV) to ensure only injury from increased imports is considered—excluding unrelated factors such as technological change or demand shifts.
Investigation procedures and timelines. Safeguard investigations are transparent and adversarial. The authority must publish initiation notice, invite written submissions, maintain a public record (see Productivity Commission guide), and may allow parties to provide evidence or appear at hearings (s 269TAX; see also Commission procedural guidance). Statutory deadlines include a requirement for a final recommendation within 155 days of initiation (s 269TAX(2)), except where the Minister grants an extension under s 269ZH. Procedures also provide for public reporting and an opportunity for interested parties to respond.
Remedies and compliance. If serious injury is found, available measures (under ss 269TAY–269TAZ) include increased tariffs, quotas, or tariff-rate quotas. The law restricts safeguards to a four-year maximum duration (extendable to eight with review), mandates periodic review and progressive liberalization, and requires actions to remain consistent with Australia's WTO commitments. The exact process for mid-term review and extension is set out within the referenced statutory sections.
Administering authority and transition status. As of June 2026, the Productivity Commission continues to administer safeguard investigations under current provisions of the Customs Act 1901 and the Productivity Commission's published guidance. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Productivity Commission note that the Australian Government announced, on 28 August 2025, its intention to transfer responsibility for safeguard investigations to the Anti-Dumping Commission (ADC), but available primary sources confirm that no legislative amendment to effect this transfer is in force as of this date. Practitioners should check the DFAT and ADC websites for any subsequent legislative change or formal transition notice.
Summary. Safeguards are imposed on increased imports causing serious injury to an Australian industry, separate from anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The current legal and procedural regime, as detailed above, remains in force, with any future changes reliant on enacted amendments.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Division 2B (ss 269TAQ–269TAX) Source: Productivity Commission Safeguards Inquiries Guide Source: DFAT – Safeguards: Australia’s Trade Remedies
Export price calculation methodology under Australian anti-dumping law
The "export price" forms one side of the dumping calculation in Australian anti-dumping investigations, set out in section 269TAB of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The core principle is to identify the price paid or payable to the exporter for goods exported to Australia—minus costs, charges, expenses, taxes, or duties incurred in exporting—and compare it to the "normal value" to determine if dumping has occurred.
Direct sales to independent importers (section 269TAB(1)). Where goods are exported to an importer in Australia who is not related to the exporter, and the sale is at arm’s length, the export price is the transaction price less costs incurred beyond the point of export (including freight, insurance, handling, and any imposed taxes or charges) to ensure the comparison is on a like-to-like (ex-factory or FOB) basis. If the price is influenced by a relationship between exporter and importer, or the sale is otherwise found not to be at arm's length (see section 269TAA for definitions), the Anti-Dumping Commission may adjust or disregard the price.
Indirect or related-party sales: resale price method (section 269TAB(2)). If the import transaction is not at arm’s length, or if there is not a direct export sale, the Commission may instead determine export price by reference to the price for which the goods are subsequently sold in Australia to an independent (unrelated) buyer, making deductions prescribed by the statute. Deductions include costs, charges, and expenses incurred after importation, and an amount representing the expected profit of the importer (as prescribed in s 269TAB(2)). This method ensures the calculated export price reflects the value at the border, not inflated or depressed by related-party or post-import arrangements.
Ministerial discretion if no reliable price basis (section 269TAB(3)). Where an export price cannot be determined under the above, the Minister may determine as the export price “such amount as the Minister considers having regard to all relevant information.” This flexible "facts available" standard allows the Commission to use any reasonable basis available on the record. The Act does not mandate any specific method or adverse inference—rather, the Minister makes a reasonable determination from available data.
Practical considerations. All calculations must be evidenced and are subject to verification; failure to supply sufficient information may result in rejection of an exporter’s own data in favour of other available evidence. The Commission’s Dumping and Subsidy Manual (Dec 2021, Chapter 3) provides more detail on the types of information commonly used, means of conversion (including exchange rate practices), and the treatment of adjustments and discounts. Where exchange rate conversion or adjustments are required, these are made according to Commission practice and supporting documentation, as described in the Manual. Any adjustments or alternative price determinations must have a clear evidentiary basis.
Each determination is fact-specific, and the Commission has latitude in its evidentiary approach, but always within the guardrails of section 269TAB and subject to verification and challenge.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 269TAB Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual, December 2021, Chapter 3
Assessment and collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties: methods, rates, and variable factors in Australia
Once the Minister publishes an anti-dumping or countervailing duty notice under section 269TG or 269TJ of the Customs Act 1901, duties are imposed and assessed at the Australian border according to the rates, exporter identities, and methods specified in the notice, with operative mechanisms under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 ("AD Tariff Act"). Australia authorizes three main forms of duty assessment: (1) ad valorem (a percentage of export price or customs value), (2) fixed specific (dollar amount per unit), and (3) combination (ad valorem plus fixed amount). The form and rate applicable to each exporter (or the residual/"all other exporters" group) are set out in the Ministerial notice, and are consolidated in the Dumping Commodity Register (DCR), published and maintained online by the Anti-Dumping Commission (ADC).
Calculation basis — ‘variable factors’. Under AD Tariff Act sections 8(5) and 10(5), each duty notice lists the "variable factors" relevant for that measure, typically including normal value, export price, and—where relevant—non-injurious price (for application of the lesser duty rule). Variable factors provide the reference values for duty calculation. Any change to these factors (e.g., through review, new shipper procedure, or by order of a court or panel) must be notified by the Commissioner to the Comptroller-General of Customs as required by section 14; the operative rates and calculations are set according to the most recent notice in effect at the date of importation for home consumption.
Operational practice for importers and brokers. In practice, importers and customs brokers consult the DCR and current ADC notices to determine: (1) if a given consignment is covered by existing measures, (2) whether the specific exporter is subject to an individual rate or the general ('all other exporters') rate, (3) the current prescribed rates, method of calculation, and applicable variable factors. The assessment and collection of anti-dumping or countervailing duty are performed by Australian Border Force (ABF), referencing the rate, exporter identity, and variable factors documented in the DCR as at the time of entry. Ad valorem, fixed, or combined duty forms are applied per the Minister's notice. If goods are not matched to a named exporter, the general/residual rate applies, typically at a higher level.
The DCR is a public-access repository of current measures, countries, goods, and applicable rates. It is not a substitute for the legal effect of notices, but serves as the Commission’s authoritative listing. All adjustments to variable factors (after reviews, new shipper findings, or court outcomes) are notified by ADC and reflected promptly in the DCR.
No statutory amendments or official procedural changes affecting these core assessment and collection processes have been confirmed as of 2026-06-16.
Source: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth), ss 8, 10, 14 Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – Dumping Commodity Register
Undertakings in lieu of anti-dumping and countervailing duties: statutory test and practical procedure
Australia’s anti-dumping and countervailing regime allows the Minister to accept legally binding undertakings from foreign exporters or governments, suspending the imposition of duties in exchange for price commitments or a halt to injurious exports. The core statutory authority is found in sections 269TGAA–269TGAC of the Customs Act 1901, which codify a bilateral alternative to duties once dumping, subsidisation, and injury are provisionally or finally established.
Who may offer an undertaking? Exporters or the government of the exporting country (in subsidy cases) may, after initiation of an investigation but before the final duty notice, offer an undertaking that—if accepted—commits to selling at or above a "non-injurious price" or otherwise eliminating the injurious effect. The offer must be in writing and is generally considered following a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD), but can be made at any stage before measures are imposed (§269TGAA(2)). The Anti-Dumping Commissioner assesses whether any undertaking offered:
- Would effectively remove the injury caused by dumping or subsidisation;
- Is capable of ongoing monitoring and enforcement; and
- Has the agreement of the Australian industry, or at minimum, does not unduly prejudice it.
The Commissioner may refuse to consider undertakings from exporters with a de minimis margin or negligible volume, or where monitoring would be impracticable (§269TGAA(3)).
Ministerial acceptance, variation, and revocation The Minister may accept, vary, or revoke undertakings after consultation with the Commissioner (§269TGAA(5)-(10)). Once accepted, an undertaking suspends the imposition of anti-dumping/countervailing duties for the signatory exporter(s), subject to ongoing compliance. If breach is suspected or monitoring becomes impossible, the Minister may revoke the undertaking and reinstate duties retroactively from the date of breach (§269TGAA(11), (12)). Public notice of acceptance, variation, or revocation is required.
Interplay with the investigation Investigations may continue in parallel after an undertaking is accepted unless the Minister decides otherwise. Where multiple exporters are investigated, undertakings may apply to one or more parties, with non-signatories still covered by duties if imposed. Australia’s implementation mirrors Article 8 (AD) and Article 18 (SCM) of the WTO Agreements, but the decision to accept is fully discretionary—there is no applicant “right” to undertakings.
Process in practice The Anti-Dumping Commission’s published guidance requires detailed written terms, disclosure of price formulas, transaction monitoring, and periodic compliance reports from exporters. Undertakings are rare but not extinct: complex pricing or third-country transshipment may make monitoring impractical, and the Commission has signaled a cautious approach in recent years.
Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 269TGAA–269TGAC Source: Anti-Dumping Commission – Dumping and Subsidy Manual, Chapter 13