Statute Details
- Title: Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Expedited Review of Anti-Dumping Duties) Determination 2000
- Act Code: CADDA1996-DTMN1
- Legislative Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1996 (notably section 26)
- Current Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (with a 2024 Revised Edition available)
- Key Provisions: Section 2 (definitions); Section 3 (anti-dumping duty); “The Schedule” (goods description)
- Commencement / Effective Date (as stated): Anti-dumping duty applies to imports on or after 1 July 2000
- Legislative Instrument Identifier: SL 306/2000 (dated 30 Jun 2000)
- Revisions / Versions Noted: 2002 RevEd (31 Jan 2002); 2024 RevEd (18 Dec 2024)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Expedited Review of Anti-Dumping Duties) Determination 2000 (“the Determination”) is a Singapore legal instrument made under the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1996 (“the CADDA”). Its practical function is to impose (and specify) an anti-dumping duty on particular imported goods from a particular named exporter, following an expedited review process.
In plain language, “dumping” refers to the sale of goods into Singapore at prices that are considered unfairly low relative to normal value (typically the exporter’s domestic or comparable market price). When dumping is found, Singapore may impose anti-dumping duties to neutralise the injury or threat of injury to the domestic industry. This Determination does not create the anti-dumping regime from scratch; rather, it applies the regime to a specific set of subject goods and a named company after a completed review.
The Determination is closely tied to a prior anti-dumping decision and a subsequent expedited review. The preamble indicates that a notice of initiation of the expedited review was published in the Gazette on 1 October 1999, and that the review has been completed. The Minister then considers and agrees with the final report of recommendations submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Trade Development Board. The outcome is a specified duty rate effective from 1 July 2000.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) identifies the instrument: it is the “Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Expedited Review of Anti-Dumping Duties) Determination 2000.” While this appears administrative, citation matters for practitioners because it determines the exact legal text that imposes the duty and the exact version that may be relied upon for compliance, tariff classification, and dispute resolution.
Section 2 (Definitions) sets the scope by defining two critical terms:
- “named company” means Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.
- “subject goods” means the goods described in the Schedule originating from Turkey.
These definitions are the gatekeepers of liability. Anti-dumping duties under this Determination are not imposed on all imports from Turkey generally; they are imposed on the subject goods originating from Turkey and specifically from the named company. For legal and compliance purposes, this means that exporters, importers, customs brokers, and counsel must focus on (i) origin, (ii) product description (as per the Schedule), and (iii) the exporter/producer identity matching the named company.
Section 3 (Anti-dumping duty) is the operative provision. It states that the Minister, being satisfied that there has been dumping into Singapore of the subject goods from the named company during the period of review, determines that an anti-dumping duty of $30 per tonne be imposed on the subject goods from the named company imported into Singapore on or after 1 July 2000.
Several points are legally significant in Section 3:
- Ministerial satisfaction / findings basis: The duty is imposed because the Minister is “satisfied” that dumping occurred during the period of review. This reflects the statutory evidentiary and procedural framework under the CADDA, even though the Determination itself is short.
- Duty rate and unit: The duty is quantified as $30 per tonne. Practitioners should note that the unit (“per tonne”) affects calculation, customs assessment, and potential disputes about weight, measurement, and conversion.
- Temporal scope: The duty applies to imports “on or after 1 July 2000.” This is crucial for determining whether shipments prior to that date are subject to the duty, and whether any transitional arrangements exist under the broader CADDA framework or related determinations.
- Targeted scope: The duty is tied to both the goods and the named company. This can matter where corporate restructuring, changes in production location, or different exporters are involved.
The Schedule (referenced in Section 2) contains the description of the subject goods. Although the extract provided does not reproduce the Schedule text, in practice the Schedule is essential: it defines what products are captured. For counsel, the Schedule is where product scope is litigated—often through tariff classification arguments, technical specifications, and evidence of whether the imported item matches the described goods.
Finally, the preamble (the “whereas” clauses) provides context: it references the expedited review initiated under section 26(1)(f) of the CADDA, the prior anti-dumping determination (including amendments), and the completion of the review. While preambles are not always operative, they can be used to interpret the intent and procedural history if there is ambiguity about scope or timing.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Determination is structured as a short subsidiary instrument with a standard layout:
- Enacting formula and citation (Section 1)
- Definitions (Section 2), which define the named exporter and the subject goods (via the Schedule)
- Operative duty provision (Section 3), which sets the duty rate and effective date
- The Schedule, which describes the goods subject to the duty
In terms of legal workflow, the Determination functions as the final “implementation” step after the CADDA’s investigative and review processes. The CADDA governs how dumping is investigated, how injury/threat is assessed (where relevant), and how reviews are conducted. This Determination then translates the review outcome into a specific duty obligation.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Determination applies primarily to importers and customs-facing parties dealing with imports into Singapore that fall within the defined scope. However, the duty is imposed on the basis of the exporter/producer (the named company) and the origin and product description (subject goods originating from Turkey, as described in the Schedule).
Accordingly, it is relevant to:
- Importers who bring in the subject goods from the named company
- Exporters/Producers (including the named company) whose pricing and export practices are implicated by the dumping finding
- Customs brokers and compliance teams responsible for accurate declarations of origin, product description, and shipment details
- Legal practitioners advising on whether a particular shipment is captured, including potential challenges to scope or calculation
Because the duty is targeted, parties outside the defined scope—such as imports from Turkey but from a different exporter, or imports of different goods not matching the Schedule—should not be automatically assumed to be subject to this specific $30 per tonne duty. The definitions in Section 2 are therefore central to applicability analysis.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Determination is brief, it is legally and commercially significant because it imposes a concrete financial obligation: $30 per tonne on captured imports. For affected industries, such duties can materially alter landed costs, pricing strategies, and supply chain decisions. For importers, the duty rate and effective date directly affect customs assessment and potential cash flow impacts.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Determination highlights the importance of scope discipline. Practitioners advising importers should focus on evidence and documentation that supports:
- the origin of the goods (Turkey, as required by the definition of subject goods);
- the product description matching the Schedule; and
- the identity of the named company as the exporter/producer relevant to the dumping finding.
In disputes, these elements often determine whether the duty applies. Even where a shipment is physically similar, a mismatch in origin or product description can be outcome-determinative.
Finally, the Determination illustrates how Singapore’s anti-dumping regime operates in practice: it is not only about initial imposition of duties, but also about reviews—including expedited reviews—where the Minister may adjust or confirm duty outcomes based on updated evidence. For lawyers, this means that anti-dumping compliance is dynamic; counsel should monitor not only the original anti-dumping determinations but also subsequent review determinations that may change duty rates, scope, or effective dates.
Related Legislation
- Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1996 (authorising Act; notably section 26 on expedited review)
- Dumping Duties Act 1996 (referenced in the metadata; practitioners should confirm the current legislative framework and any transitional provisions)
- Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Review of Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 2) Determination 1998 (referenced in the preamble as the earlier determination subject to review)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties (Expedited Review of Anti-Dumping Duties) Determination 2000 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.