International Trade Administration Commission and Others v Association of Meat Importers and Exporters and Others (159/2024; 168/2024; 169/2024) [2025] ZASCA 173 (18 November 2025)

Case Note

Case name: International Trade Administration Commission and Others v Association of Meat Importers and Exporters and Others
Citation: (159/2024, 168/2024 and 169/2024) [2025] ZASCA 173
Date: 18 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant issues regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duties in the context of South African trade law, particularly under the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964. The judgment clarifies the procedural responsibilities of the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) and the grounds upon which ministers may accept or reject ITAC's recommendations, thereby contributing to the understanding of administrative fairness in trade regulation.

The case has broader implications for international trade relations, especially concerning compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. By examining the legality of government actions in relation to anti-dumping duties, it underscores the checks and balances necessary in the regulation of trade practices that may undermine local industries.

Cases Cited

• International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 6; 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC); 2010 (5) BCLR 457 (CC); 72 SATC 135
• Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA); [2004] 3 All SA 1 (SCA)
• Chairman, Board on Tariffs and Trade, and Others v Brenco Inc and Others 2001 (4) SA 511 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964
• International Trade Administration Act 71 of 2002
• Anti-Dumping Regulations published under GN 3197 in Government Gazette 25684
• Board on Tariffs and Trade Act 107 of 1986

Rules of Court Cited

• Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment from the Supreme Court of Appeal concerns the legality of anti-dumping duties imposed on bone-in chicken portions imported from various countries following a sunset review initiated by ITAC. The court was required to determine whether the decisions made by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and the Deputy Minister of Finance were lawful and justified. The appeals by the appellants were upheld, and the high court's order was set aside, emphasizing the legislative framework governing anti-dumping duties and the procedural legitimacy of ITAC's investigative processes.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case included the authority and powers of ITAC to initiate sunset reviews, the procedural fairness in the decision-making processes regarding anti-dumping duties, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding who holds the power to amend the Customs Act.

Held

The court held that ITAC acted within its authority when it recommended the maintenance of anti-dumping duties, and that both the Minister of Trade's acceptance of this recommendation and the subsequent action by the Deputy Minister of Finance to amend the Customs Act were lawful. The appeals were upheld, and the cross-appeal was dismissed, reflecting the validity of the administrative actions taken in accordance with the established legislative framework.

THE FACTS

The case arose from the imposition of anti-dumping duties on frozen chicken portions from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom, initiated at the request of the South African Poultry Association (SAPA). The Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (AMIE) contested these duties, leading to a high court application to review the decisions made by ITAC and the ministers. The high court ruled in favor of AMIE, prompting appeals from the appellants which were subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal, emphasizing the procedural and legal validity of the initial decisions made in the trade regulation process.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions for the court included whether ITAC's decision to initiate a sunset review followed correct procedures, whether the ministers acted lawfully within the scope of their powers, and whether AMIE's procedural claims regarding the review process were valid. The court also had to ascertain if the Deputy Minister of Finance had been delegated adequate authority to amend the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.

ANALYSIS

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the legislative framework governing anti-dumping duties and emphasized that the power to initiate sunset reviews is firmly situated within the procedural guidance provided by the Customs Act and relevant regulations. It clarified that the initiation of such reviews does not require a pre-verification of the information submitted by the domestic industry, thus dismissing AMIE's claims regarding procedural fairness.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the ministerial decisions constituted executive actions and were not subjected to the rigorous standards of procedural fairness associated with administrative decisions. The findings underscored the necessity for bureaucratic efficiency while balancing the competitive interests of local producers against the rights of importers, all within the context of international trade obligations.

REMEDY

The remedy provided by the court involved upholding the appeals brought by all three appellants, thereby reinstating the decisions originally contested by AMIE. The court also ordered the set-aside of the high court's ruling, culminating in the dismissal of AMIE's application with costs, which affirms the legal standing and procedural integrity of the actions taken by ITAC and the relevant ministers.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this ruling include the articulation of the thresholds necessary for initiating a sunset review under anti-dumping regulations and the demarcation between executive and administrative actions concerning trade regulation. The judgment reinforces the principles of administrative competence and the lawful authority of designated officials to act within the parameters outlined by legislation, whilst adhering to international trade obligations set forth by the WTO agreements.

The court's emphasis on the factual existence of administrative acts affirms that such acts remain valid until explicitly set aside, further entrenching the notion of legality in administrative procedures. Overall, this case serves as a pivotal reference for future disputes arising from the regulation of international trade and competition law in South Africa.