AN IMPENDING class-action case of the Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (AMIE) taking the International Trade Administration Commission (Itac) to court over the rules for importing chicken from the EU might yet be another battlefront in the issue of chickens portions on consumers’ plates.
The AMIE's legal action against Itac and the government ministers stems from concerns regarding the EU Sunset Review investigation of anti-dumping duties on frozen bone-in portions from Germany, the Netherlands and the UK.
“This refers to domestic poultry farmers and producers in South Africa who are concerned about the impact of imported EU chicken products on their industry,” ChickenFacts's Zola Brunner said at the weekend.
The battle lines are drawn between local producers squaring up against importers, primarily marked by the recently re-enacted tariffs on poultry imports by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, which have imposed an anti-dumping duty of a maximum of 265% placed on chicken imports from Brazil in addition to the 62% tariff that is already in place, which is responsible for more than half of the country’s imported frozen chicken.
The new duties also include an additional tariff of a maximum of 158.4% on imports from Ireland, 96.9% on Poland, 85.8% on Spain and 67.4% on Denmark.
The argument revolves around Itac’s alleged non-compliance with some regulatory aspects of the sunset review, which renders the final determination reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
A key point of contention is Itac's failure to provide AMIE and other concerned parties with an oral hearing.
ChickenFacts said the omissions could have several consequences, with importers maintaining that denying oral hearings limits Itac's ability to gain a comprehensive understanding of intricate matters.
Complex issues often require dynamic discussions, clarifications, and the opportunity for parties to present their perspectives in person. Without oral hearings, there’s a risk that Itac judgments might be incomplete or influenced by a lack of diverse viewpoints, potentially leading to biased decisions.
ChickenFacts maintains that Itac only heard the South African Poultry Association (Sapa) on a crucial issue and then proceeded to make a decision on the tariff, heading where the duty was ultimately imposed. This, for ChickenFacts, raises concerns about fairness and inclusivity.
It said such a one-sided engagement undermined the principles of transparency and fairness in regulatory processes.
FairPlay, a not-for-profit advocacy movement that combats dumping and predatory trade, said the legal matter was a smokescreen for importers wanting to continue profiting from dumping, which was why they were bringing a legal case.
Fairplay founder Francois Bard said: “They (AMIE) cite legal precedent, food security, affordability and price stability as reasons for the case. Clearly, the food security and price stability or affordability are mere smokescreens to hide AMIE’s real objective, namely that they want to have legal precedent to continue dumping as part of their predatory strategy.”
However, ChickenFacts said that the consequences of not allowing oral hearings go beyond mere procedural compliance.
It said they impacted the quality and credibility of Itac’s decisions, potentially affecting the outcomes for stakeholders like AMIE.
“This lack of engagement can contribute to a perception of bias and may weaken the legitimacy of the final determination. In essence, AMIE’s challenge is not only about rectifying a flawed process but also about safeguarding the interests of consumers, maintaining fair trade practices, and promoting stability within the poultry industry,” ChickenFacts said.
The case's outcomes could have far-reaching effects on the industry, legal precedent, food security, and the broader economic landscape.
BUSINESS REPORT