Australia — Trade Remedies

Australia's trade-remedies system for anti-dumping and countervailing duties is governed by Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901 (Commonwealth), which sets out the investigative and administrative procedures, and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, which imposes the duties themselves. Part XVB was comprehensively reformed through amendments enacted between 2012 and 2017. These statutes implement Australia's obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (Article VI of GATT 1994) and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

The Anti-Dumping Commission is the statutory body responsible for conducting investigations into allegations of dumping (when goods are exported to Australia at prices below normal value in the country of export) and subsidisation (when exporters receive financial benefits from their governments that allow below-market pricing). The Commission operates within the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and is led by the Anti-Dumping Commissioner, a statutory office holder.

The Commission's core functions under Part XVB include:

• Investigating applications from Australian industry alleging that dumped or subsidised imports have caused or threaten to cause material injury to the domestic industry producing like goods. Material injury is assessed by examining the volume and price effects of imports and their impact on the domestic industry.
• Calculating dumping margins (the difference between export price and normal value) and subsidy amounts, and making recommendations to the Minister.
• Making preliminary affirmative determinations (PADs) where circumstances warrant, which trigger the collection of securities (cash deposits or bank guarantees) on imports pending the final decision.
• Conducting reviews of existing measures, including continuation inquiries (to determine whether measures should remain in force past their sunset date), new-shipper reviews, and variable-factor reviews.
• Maintaining the Dumping Commodity Register (DCR), a public database of all goods currently subject to measures, including country-specific and exporter-specific duty rates.

Decision authority rests with the Minister, not the Commissioner. Under section 269TG of the Customs Act, anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties are imposed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Anti-Dumping Commissioner. Section 8 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 imposes dumping duty on goods "by virtue of a notice under subsection 269TG(1) or (2) of the Customs Act"; section 10 imposes countervailing duty in parallel.

Certain decisions of the Minister and the Commissioner may be reviewed by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel, an independent merits-review body. Applicants must apply in writing within 30 days of notification of a reviewable decision. Judicial review of Panel decisions and certain ministerial decisions is available through the Federal Court of Australia.

The Commission must maintain a public record for each investigation in accordance with section 269ZJ of the Customs Act. All non-confidential submissions, the Commissioner's reports, and ministerial notices are published on the Electronic Public Record (EPR), which is accessible through the Commission's website.

As of late 2025, the Australian Government announced its intention to transfer responsibility for safeguard investigations (emergency measures against import surges causing or threatening serious injury) from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, consolidating all trade-remedy functions in one agency. The government provided AUD 5 million in additional funding to support the Commission's mission, with an emphasis on reducing case timelines and enhancing efficiency. The precise timing of the safeguard transition has not yet been legislated.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), Part XVB Source: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth) Source: Anti-Dumping Commission Source: Statement of Expectations for the Anti-Dumping Commission, December 2025 Source: DFAT – Trade Remedies

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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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, Economic Framework for Injury and Causation Analysis

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 arms-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:

1. No home-market sales of like goods by the exporter or other sellers.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

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:

1. 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.

1. 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):

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.

1. The application has been made by or on behalf of the Australian industry (that is, the standing requirements described above are met).

1. 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 — Apply for anti-dumping or countervailing duties (measures)

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 investigation timeline begins when an industry application is formally lodged with the Anti-Dumping Commission (or when the Minister self-initiates an investigation, which is rare in practice). The lodgement date is the date a Commission staff member first receives the application.

## Day 20: Initiation or rejection decision (section 269TC(4))

Section 269TC(4) of the Customs Act 1901 requires the Commissioner to decide, within 20 days after receiving the application, whether to reject it under subsection 269TC(1) or (2) or to initiate an investigation. The Commissioner rejects the application if it fails to demonstrate standing (support from more than 50% of the Australian industry by expressed view and at least 25% of total industry production), lacks sufficient evidence of dumping or subsidisation and material injury, or is materially incomplete. If the Commissioner is satisfied that there appear to be reasonable grounds for the publication of a duty notice and that the application meets all statutory requirements, the Commissioner publishes an initiation notice on the Commission's Electronic Public Record (EPR). The notice identifies the goods under consideration, the country or countries of export, and the investigation period and injury analysis period.

## Questionnaires and response deadlines

Upon initiation, the Commission sends detailed questionnaires to known exporters, foreign producers, and Australian importers. According to the Commission's published guidance, interested parties have 37 days from initiation to lodge questionnaire responses. The exporter questionnaire requests sales data, production costs, home-market prices, related-party relationships, and other information the Commission uses to calculate normal value and export price under sections 269TAC and 269TACB. The importer questionnaire seeks Australian import data, purchase prices, and market information relevant to the injury analysis under section 269TAE.

Failure to respond, or submission of incomplete or unverifiable data, may result in the Commission determining dumping margins or normal values under "facts available" pursuant to section 269TAC(6). Subsection 269TAC(7) permits the Minister (and by delegation, the Commissioner) to disregard information considered unreliable. For uncooperative exporters, section 269TACAB(2)(e) directs that normal value be determined under subsection 269TAC(6), often resulting in a higher, adverse dumping margin based on the highest cooperative exporter's rate or the applicant's estimates.

The 37-day deadline is Commission practice, not a statutory floor. Extensions are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Parties seeking an extension must apply in writing with a detailed explanation and submit whatever partial response is possible by the original deadline.

## On-site verifications

If an exporter or Australian industry submits a questionnaire response, the Commission ordinarily conducts an on-site verification to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the submitted data. For foreign exporters, the Commission travels to the exporting country and conducts a multi-day audit of the exporter's financial records, cost accounting system, sales invoices, and related-party transactions. For the Australian industry, the Commission conducts an Australian Industry Verification at the applicant's premises to verify injury data (sales, revenue, costs, employment, capacity utilisation). The Commission's Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021) describes verification procedures in detail.

Export-country verifications require cooperation from the exporter and the foreign government. If a government denies the Commission access (for example, by refusing to issue visas or by imposing conditions that would compromise the verification's integrity), the Commission may determine normal value or export price under facts available under section 269TAC(6), often resulting in a higher dumping margin.

## Day 60 or later: Preliminary affirmative determination (PAD) and securities (section 269TE)

Section 269TE(1) of the Customs Act 1901 permits the Commissioner to make a preliminary affirmative determination (PAD) if, at any time during an investigation that is not earlier than 60 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated, the Commissioner is satisfied that there appear to be sufficient grounds for the publication of a dumping or countervailing duty notice. "Sufficient grounds" is a lower threshold than the final determination standard; it requires prima facie evidence of dumping or subsidisation, material injury, and a causal link, but does not require the Commissioner to have completed all verifications or resolved all factual disputes.

If the Commissioner makes a PAD, the Commissioner publishes a PAD report on the EPR setting out the preliminary dumping margins or subsidy amounts, the preliminary injury finding, and the reasons for the determination. Under section 42(3) of the Customs Act, the Minister then decides whether to declare that securities (interim measures) will be collected. Securities take the form of cash deposits or bank guarantees lodged by importers at the time of entry for each shipment of the goods under consideration. The security amount is set at the preliminary dumping margin or subsidy amount (expressed as a percentage of the customs value or as a fixed amount per unit).

Securities are collected but not forfeited; they are held by the Australian Border Force pending the final determination. If the Minister ultimately imposes final duties under section 269TG or 269TJ, the securities collected during the PAD period are converted to interim dumping duty or interim countervailing duty under sections 8 or 10 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. Section 12 of that Act provides that interim duty cannot exceed the security taken. If the Minister decides not to impose final duties, or if the final duty rate is lower than the security rate, the excess securities are refunded.

The day-60 floor in section 269TE(1) ensures that parties have a minimum period to respond to questionnaires and make initial submissions before provisional measures are imposed. The Commission's published practice indicates that PADs are often issued later than day 60 — the Commission typically verifies exporter and industry data before making a PAD. The December 2025 Statement of Expectations from the Minister for Industry and Innovation (a policy document, not legislation) directed the Commissioner to "prioritise effective remedies for Australian manufacturers and producers being injured by dumping and subsidisation, including issuing preliminary affirmative determinations, as soon as possible where the circumstances warrant." The Commission's November 2025 Statement of Intent (also a policy document) noted that "after several years during which no PADs were introduced, the Commission has introduced four PADs since March 2025."

## Statement of Essential Facts (SEF) — by day 110 under Commission practice

According to the Commission's published guidance, the Commissioner issues a Statement of Essential Facts (SEF) by day 110 after initiation. This is Commission practice, not a statutory deadline. The SEF is a public document (with confidential appendices) that sets out the Commission's preliminary findings on dumping or subsidisation, material injury, causation, and the dumping margins or subsidy amounts. It forms the basis of the Commissioner's final report to the Minister. The SEF discloses:

• The methodology the Commission used to calculate normal value under section 269TAC, export price, and dumping margins under section 269TACB.
• The injury factors the Commission considered under section 269TAE and the Commission's preliminary conclusions on volume effects, price effects (undercutting, depression, suppression), and economic impact on the Australian industry.
• Any preliminary conclusions on causation and non-attribution under section 269TAE(2A).

Publication of the SEF triggers a comment period (typically 20 days under Commission practice). Interested parties may lodge submissions responding to the SEF, challenging the Commission's factual findings or legal conclusions, or presenting additional evidence. The Commission considers these post-SEF submissions when preparing the final report but is not required to re-verify data or re-open the investigative record. If a party raises a material factual error in the SEF supported by record evidence, the Commission will ordinarily correct the error in the final report.

Extensions of the SEF deadline are available if special circumstances exist. The Commission's Statement of Principles — Requests for Extensions of Time (published guidance) sets out the criteria for extension requests.

## Day 155: Commissioner's final report to the Minister (section 269ZHI)

Section 269ZHI(1) of the Customs Act 1901 requires the Commissioner to give the Minister a report setting out the Commissioner's conclusions and recommendations not later than 155 days after the date of initiation of the investigation (or such later date as the Commissioner allows under subsection 269ZHI(3) if an extension is granted for special circumstances). The final report is a comprehensive document that:

• Describes the goods under consideration and any scope issues.
• Sets out the dumping margins for each cooperative exporter, calculated under sections 269TAC and 269TACB, and the residual and uncooperative dumping margins under section 269TACAB.
• Presents the material-injury analysis under section 269TAE, examining volume effects, price effects, and impact on the Australian industry's sales, revenue, profitability, employment, capacity utilisation, and other economic indicators.
• Addresses causation and non-attribution under section 269TAE(2A).
• Recommends whether the Minister should publish a dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice under section 269TG or 269TJ, and if so, the form of the notice (country-wide duty, exporter-specific duties, variable factors, or a combination).

A non-confidential version of the final report is published on the EPR after the Minister makes a decision, enabling interested parties and the public to understand the Commission's reasoning.

## Day 155 + 30 days: Minister's decision (section 269TG(2))

Section 269TG(2) of the Customs Act 1901 requires the Minister to decide whether to publish a dumping duty notice within 30 days after receiving the Commissioner's report. If the Minister is satisfied that the goods have been dumped and that, because of that dumping, material injury to an Australian industry producing like goods has been or is being caused or threatened, the Minister publishes a dumping duty notice by notice in the Gazette. The notice specifies the goods, the country or countries of export, the dumping duty (as a percentage of export price, as a fixed amount per unit, or as a variable duty), and the date the notice takes effect.

The Minister's decision is informed by the Commissioner's report but is not bound by the Commissioner's recommendation; the Minister may publish a notice, decline to publish, or vary the scope or rate recommended by the Commissioner. If the Minister considers there are special circumstances, subsection 269TG(2) permits a longer period, but the decision must be made before any specified expiry day.

## Extensions and actual timelines

The 155-day deadline in section 269ZHI is subject to extension under subsection 269ZHI(3) if the Commissioner determines special circumstances exist. The Commission's published guidance and the December 2025 Statement of Expectations note that many investigations in recent years have exceeded 155 days. Common reasons for extension include large numbers of exporters requiring individual examination, complex subsidy or transfer-pricing issues, difficulties obtaining foreign-government cooperation or data, and requests for additional time from parties to respond to the SEF or lodge new evidence.

The December 2025 Statement of Expectations (a policy document) stated that "current case lengths are too long" and that "material injury caused to Australian industries by dumping and subsidisation is being exacerbated by lengthy investigation timelines." The Minister directed the Commissioner to reduce case timelines. The Commissioner's November 2025 Statement of Intent (also a policy document) committed to "streamlined triaging and management of cases, enhanced governance processes and risk-based verifications" to improve timeliness.

## Termination (section 269TK)

At any time during an investigation, the Commissioner may terminate the investigation under section 269TK if:

• The applicant withdraws the application.
• The dumping margin or subsidy amount is below the de minimis threshold. The Commission's practice (consistent with WTO thresholds) treats dumping margins below 2% and subsidy amounts below 1% ad valorem as de minimis, though these are policy benchmarks, not statutory thresholds in the Customs Act.
• The volume of dumped or subsidised imports is negligible (the Commission's practice applies a 3% threshold for imports from a single country, subject to cumulation rules, consistent with WTO guidance).
• The Commissioner determines there is insufficient evidence of dumping, subsidisation, injury, or causation.

Termination is published by notice on the EPR, and the investigation ends. Any securities collected under a PAD are refunded.

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), 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

Anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed in Australia are not permanent. They expire automatically after five years unless the Minister determines, following a continuation inquiry, that their expiry would lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and material injury. This sunset rule implements Australia's obligations under Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and parallels the duration provisions in most WTO member jurisdictions.

## Automatic expiry after five years

A dumping duty notice or countervailing duty notice published under section 269TG or section 269TJ of the Customs Act 1901 takes effect on the date specified in the notice and remains in force for five years from that date, unless earlier revoked or continued following a continuation inquiry. The five-year period runs from the date the original notice was published in the Gazette, not from the date the investigation was initiated or the Commissioner's final report was issued.

If no application for continuation is lodged within the statutory deadline (described below), the measures expire automatically on the specified expiry date. The Australian Border Force ceases to collect dumping or countervailing duties on imports entered for home consumption after that date, and the goods are removed from the Dumping Commodity Register (DCR), the Commission's public database of goods currently subject to measures.

Where measures have been continued following a prior continuation inquiry, the five-year period runs from the date the Minister's continuation decision was published, and the cycle repeats: the Commission publishes a new invitation for continuation applications approximately nine months before the new expiry date.

## Continuation inquiries under Division 6A

Division 6A of Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901 (sections 269ZHF to 269ZHI) governs continuation inquiries. A continuation inquiry examines whether the expiry of measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping (or subsidisation) and of material injury to the Australian industry producing like goods. This is a forward-looking, predictive assessment, distinct from the backward-looking causation analysis in the original investigation.

Application and initiation timeline

The Anti-Dumping Commission must publish an invitation for continuation applications at least nine months before the measures are due to expire (Commission practice under section 269ZHF). The invitation is published on the Commission's website, in the Electronic Public Record (EPR), and in an Anti-Dumping Notice. It identifies the goods, the country or countries subject to the measures, and the expiry date.

Australian industry (or a portion of the Australian industry producing like goods) has 60 days from the publication of the invitation to lodge an application for continuation using Form B600 — Application for the continuation of a notice or undertaking. If no application is lodged within the 60-day window, the measures expire automatically on the specified expiry date; there is no discretion for the Commissioner or Minister to extend them absent an application.

The application must demonstrate standing — that the applicant represents the whole or a portion of the Australian industry producing like goods, using the same standing thresholds as an original application (more than 50% of industry production by expressed view, and at least 25% of total industry production). The applicant must provide evidence that the expiry of measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and of material injury. This typically includes:

• Current import volumes and prices from the country or countries subject to the measures during the period the measures have been in force, to show whether dumping or subsidisation has continued (albeit potentially at reduced volumes due to the deterrent effect of the measures).
• Evidence of suppressed demand or latent capacity in the exporting country, indicating that exporters would increase shipments to Australia if measures were removed.
• Price comparisons showing that prices in the exporting country's home market, or export prices to third countries not subject to measures, remain below Australian prices and would undercut the Australian industry if the measures expired.
• Injury data for the Australian industry over the five-year period the measures have been in force, showing whether the industry has recovered or whether it remains vulnerable to renewed dumping or subsidisation.
• Counterfactual analysis — what is likely to happen if the measures expire. The Commission examines whether the conditions that led to the original dumping and injury determination persist or have changed (for example, structural overcapacity in the exporting country, continued price depression in export markets, or evidence of offers to Australian importers at dumped prices).

The Commission's published guidance, Guidelines: applying for continuation of measures, notes that continuation applications should address all of these factors and that the evidentiary standard remains facts, not conjecture (consistent with section 269TAE(2AA) of the Customs Act).

Investigation and decision timeline

If the Commissioner is satisfied that the continuation application meets the statutory requirements, the Commissioner initiates a continuation inquiry by publishing an initiation notice. The investigation follows a structure similar to the original investigation: the Commission sends questionnaires to exporters and importers, conducts verifications, and assesses whether the expiry of measures would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

The Commissioner must complete the continuation inquiry and provide a report to the Minister with a recommendation under section 269ZHG. The Minister then decides whether to continue the measures (publish a continuation notice under section 269ZHG(4)(a)(i)), vary the measures, or allow them to expire. If the Minister decides to continue the measures, they remain in force for a further five years from the original expiry date, and the cycle repeats.

The timeline for continuation inquiries is not subject to the same statutory 155-day deadline that applies to original investigations under section 269ZHI. Continuation inquiries often take 12 to 18 months from initiation to the Minister's decision, though the Commission has committed to reducing timelines in response to ministerial direction. Because continuation inquiries are typically initiated 9 to 12 months before the expiry date, the Minister's decision is usually made before the measures expire. However, if the continuation inquiry is still underway at the original expiry date and the measures have not been extended, the measures expire, and there is a gap in protection until the Minister publishes a continuation notice (if the Minister decides to continue).

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence (the substantive test)

Section 269ZHG does not prescribe specific factors the Commissioner must consider in assessing likelihood of continuation or recurrence, but the Commission's practice (set out in the Dumping and Subsidy Manual) examines:

1. Whether dumping or subsidisation has continued. The Commission calculates current dumping margins or subsidy amounts for exporters during the continuation-inquiry period (typically the most recent 12 months for which data are available). If dumping or subsidisation persists even while measures are in place, that is probative evidence it would continue if measures expired.

1. Whether dumping or subsidisation would recur if measures expired. Even if current dumping margins are zero or minimal (because the measures have successfully deterred dumping), the Commission examines whether removal of the measures would lead exporters to resume dumping. Relevant evidence includes: price offers to Australian importers at dumped levels; continued dumping to third-country markets; structural factors such as overcapacity, declining home-market demand, or reliance on export sales; and past behaviour (exporters' historical willingness to dump when no measures were in place).

1. Whether material injury would continue or recur. The Commission assesses the current state of the Australian industry (sales, revenue, profitability, employment, capacity utilisation) and whether the industry has recovered during the five-year period the measures were in force. If the industry remains vulnerable — for example, operating at low margins, with unutilised capacity, or facing continued price pressure from imports subject to measures — the Commission is more likely to find that injury would recur if measures expired. The Commission also examines whether removal of measures would lead to increased import volumes, price undercutting, and volume or price injury, using a predictive counterfactual analysis.

The Commission's approach is informed by WTO Appellate Body guidance in US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review and subsequent sunset-review disputes, which hold that investigating authorities must determine whether dumping and injury would be "likely" (not merely possible) if measures expired, based on positive evidence and reasoned analysis rather than assumptions or speculation.

## Interim reviews and new-shipper reviews

Separately from continuation inquiries, Part XVB provides for interim reviews of existing measures. Section 269ZDB permits the Minister to conduct a review of anti-dumping measures if circumstances have changed such that the measures are no longer warranted or should be varied. An interim review may be initiated by the Minister on their own motion or on application by an interested party (an exporter, importer, or the Australian industry).

Common grounds for interim review include:

• Changed circumstances — for example, the exporter has ceased dumping, or injury to the Australian industry has ceased.
• Variable factors — where measures were imposed as a percentage of export price or customs value and the actual dumping margin has changed materially, the Minister may vary the duty rate.
• New information not available at the time of the original investigation or most recent review.

An interim review may result in the revocation of measures (if dumping or injury has ceased), variation of the duty rate or the form of the measure, or confirmation that measures should remain unchanged. Interim reviews follow investigative procedures similar to original investigations, including questionnaires, verifications, and a Commissioner's report and ministerial decision.

Section 269ZE provides for new-shipper reviews, which allow an exporter that did not export the goods to Australia during the original investigation period (or was not examined individually in the investigation) to request an expedited review to establish an individual dumping margin. This is particularly relevant where the original investigation applied a residual or country-wide duty rate to non-examined exporters. If the new shipper can demonstrate it did not export during the investigation period and is not related to an exporter that was subject to measures, the Commission conducts an accelerated review and calculates an individual dumping margin for that exporter. If the new shipper's margin is zero or de minimis, the exporter may be excluded from measures or assigned a lower duty rate.

## Circumvention and anti-absorption inquiries

Australia's anti-dumping framework also includes provisions to address circumvention (attempts to evade measures through transshipment, minor modifications to the goods, or assembly in a third country) and anti-absorption (where exporters absorb the duty rather than raising export prices, such that the remedial effect of the measure is negated). These inquiries may be initiated during the five-year life of the measures and can result in the extension of measures to cover circumventing imports or an increase in the duty rate to offset absorption. The statutory framework for circumvention is set out in Division 5 of Part XVB (sections 269ZDBB to 269ZDBE); anti-absorption provisions are in sections 269ZDB and related sections.

Circumvention inquiries examine whether imports of goods that are slightly modified or assembled in a third country should be treated as the goods subject to measures. The Commission's Dumping and Subsidy Manual describes the circumvention-inquiry process and the evidentiary standard (the applicant must demonstrate that circumvention is occurring and that it undermines the remedial effect of the measures).

Source: Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 269TG, 269TJ, 269ZHF, 269ZHG, 269ZDB, 269ZE, 269ZDBB Source: Anti-Dumping Commission — Apply for anti-dumping or countervailing duties (measures) Source: Anti-Dumping Commission, Dumping and Subsidy Manual (December 2021)

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

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)