Menteri Kewangan & Ors v Diler Demir Celik Endustru Ve Ticaret AS (also known as Diler Iron and Steel Co Inc) [2025] 6 MLJ 523

Federal Court (Putrajaya)

Trade Law — Anti-dumping investigation

1. The Respondent, Diler Demir Celik Endüstri ve Ticaret AS, is a Turkish steel manufacturer producing reinforcing bars (Rebar). Its products were exported to Malaysia through its related trading company, Diler Dis Ticaret AS (“DDT”), which handled all export transactions to Malaysia. In 2013, the Malaysian Steel Association filed a petition with the Government alleging that Rebar exported from Turkey and Singapore was being dumped into the Malaysian market at unfairly low prices and was causing injury to the domestic steel industry. This triggered a formal anti-dumping investigation by the Malaysian Investigating Authority (“IA”) under the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 [Act 504].
2. During the investigation, the Respondent submitted pricing, sales, and production data to the IA. The IA determined that the export price for Rebar delivered to Malaysia should be taken from the internal transfer price between the Respondent and its related exporter DDT, pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Act. This was because there existed an actual, ascertainable export price between the producer and its trading arm. The IA did not deem the relationship between the two companies as one that made the transaction price unreliable. The resulting export price was therefore derived from the Respondent-to-DDT sales data rather than from DDT’s resale price to Malaysian importers
3. The IA also reviewed whether any adjustments were needed under subsection 18(3) to ensure a fair comparison between export price and normal value. The Respondent argued that a duty drawback adjustment should apply, claiming that Turkish law allowed raw-material import duties to be exempted when the finished goods were exported. However, the IA found that the Respondent’s domestic-market sales did not receive similar exemptions under Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime, and the Respondent had not produced sufficient evidence showing how the claimed duty drawback affected price comparability. The IA therefore declined to make the adjustment.
4. At the end of the investigation, the IA concluded that the Respondent’s exports were dumped at a margin of 3.62%, and recommended to the Minister of Finance that anti-dumping duties be imposed. Acting on the IA’s final determination, the Minister imposed anti-dumping duties on Rebar exported from Turkey, including those manufactured by the Respondent.
5. The Respondent then filed a judicial review, arguing among others that the IA used the wrong methodology by relying on the related-party transfer price as the export price under subsection 17(1), and by refusing a duty-drawback adjustment under subsection 18(3).
6. The High Court dismissed the application, but on appeal, the Court of Appeal found in the Respondent’s favour and ordered the IA to recalculate the export price and apply the requested adjustments.
7. This led the Appellants i.e. the Minister of Finance, the Government of Malaysia, and the IA appeal to the Federal Court.

1. Whether section 17 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 must be read with section 18 of the same to ensure fair comparison between export price and normal value which is normally at ex-factory level?
2. Whether subsections 17(2) and 17(3) of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 [Act 504] are applicable for the determination of export price when the export price had been determined based on subsection 17(1) of the same and no issue arises that there is no export price or that it appears that the export price is unreliable?
3. Whether in making a price comparison pursuant to s 18 of Act 504 and reg 32 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 between the export price and normal value, adjustment had to be made even though no cost was borne by the respondent in the domestic market with respect to duty drawback?

(1)  Whether sections 17 and 18 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 must be read together in determining the export price and ensuring a fair comparison with the normal value?

(2)  Whether subsections 17(2) and 17(3) of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993] are applicable for the determination of export price when the export price had been determined based on subsection 17(1) of the same and no issue arises that there is no export price or that it appears that the export price is unreliable?

(a) The Federal Court considered Issues 1 and 2 together as they both concerned the proper interpretation of section 17 in relation to section 18.

(b) In the present case, there existed an actual sales transaction between the respondent and its related trading company, DDT, which constituted an export price within the meaning of subsection 17(1).

(c)  The Federal Court further held that the existence of a relationship between the respondent and DDT did not, by itself, render the export price unreliable. The Investigating Authority was entitled to rely on the transaction price between the related parties, as there was no evidence showing that the price was distorted or artificial (paras [61]–[62]).

(d) Having found that a valid and reliable export price existed under subsection 17(1), the Federal Court held that the statutory conditions for invoking subsections 17(2) and 17(3) were not satisfied. One of the prerequisites for the application of subsection 17(2) is the absence of an export price, which was not the case here. Accordingly, subsections 17(2) and 17(3) were inapplicable (paras [75]–[76], [89]–[90]).

(e)  The Federal Court further clarified the relationship between sections 17 and 18, holding that both provisions must be read together as part of a coherent statutory scheme. Section 17 governs the establishment of the export price, while section 18 governs the comparison between the export price and the normal value to ensure fairness (paras [75]–[76]).

(f)   However, the requirement of fairness applies only at the comparison stage under section 18 and does not extend to the establishment of export price under section 17 (para [81]).

(g) Accordingly, the Federal Court answered Issue 1 in the affirmative and Issue 2 in the negative, holding that the Investigating Authority had correctly determined the export price under subsection 17(1) and that the Court of Appeal had erred in directing the use of a constructed export price.

(3)  Whether in making a price comparison pursuant to section 18 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and reg 32 of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations 1994 between the export price and normal value, adjustment had to be made even though no cost was borne by the respondent in the domestic market with respect to duty drawback?

(a) The Federal Court held that an adjustment for duty drawback under subsection 18(3) is not automatic. The burden lies on the party seeking the adjustment to demonstrate that the duty drawback affects price comparability between the export price and the normal value.

(b) In the present case, the Federal Court found that duty drawback was only available where exports were made under Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime, and that the respondent’s domestic sales did not enjoy the same exemption. The Respondent failed to adduce evidence to show how the alleged duty drawback affected price comparability (paras [102]–[104]).

(c)  Accordingly, the Federal Court held that the Investigating Authority had acted correctly in refusing the duty-drawback adjustment, and that there was no error of law or irrationality in its determination (paras [112]–[114]).

1. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, and restored the High Court’s ruling, holding that the Investigating Authority correctly determined the export price and rightly rejected the duty-drawback adjustment.

1. Export price must first be determined under subsection 17(1) when an actual and reliable price exists.
2. Duty-drawback adjustments under subsection 18(3) require clear evidence of impact on price comparability.
3. Courts should not interfere with the Investigating Authority’s findings unless there is clear illegality or irrationality.