Post by firoj1616 on Feb 15, 2024 10:40:17 GMT
The Superior Court of Justice maintained the anti-dumping rate on insulin imports from Denmark at 76.1%. The decision was signed by the 1st Section of the STJ, which did not accept an appeal from the companies Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Farmacêutica do Brasil. The companies were trying to annul Resolution 2/01 issued by the presidency of the Chamber of Foreign Commerce (Camex), which imposed the anti-dumping rate. The manufacturers defend the illegality of the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the grounds that, although there was a change in consumption patterns, the fact did not cause damage to the domestic industry. Another argument is the disproportionality of the fixed percentage. The Minister of State for Development, Industry and Foreign Trade informed that the damage to the national industry was not caused by imports of human insulin, but rather by all imports of medicines containing insulin.
He also assured that the relevance and urgency which legitimized the president of Camex to issue the resolution are present due to the nature of the matter, that is, the defense of the national industry. In the first instance, the companies obtained an injunction. After examining the case, the Federal Regional Canada Email List Court of the 1st Region ordered the case to be sent to the STJ. According to TRF-1, it is the responsibility of the higher court to process and judge a request for a Writ of Mandamus against an act by a member of Camex, as it is a collegiate body made up of State ministers. Minister Denise Arruda, rapporteur of the case at the STJ, considered that the allegations regarding the fixed percentage of anti-dumping duties do not deserve examination by the collegiate.
She recalled that the Writ of Mandamus protects a liquid and certain right, and that if it depends on subsequent proof, it is neither liquid nor certain for security purposes. Denise Arruda highlighted that there is no reason for the companies' argument regarding the disproportionality in the percentage, because the application of anti-dumping duties does not aim to equalize prices.But its perverse effect is to fail to provide certainty and security to the administrative act, failing the administration to exercise the necessary self-protection of its acts, and thus causing poorly instructed cases to end up in the Judiciary, increasing the risk of failure and loss. to the public interest that apparently wanted to be protected. The decision made by the Federal Supreme Court clearly demonstrates this mistake.
He also assured that the relevance and urgency which legitimized the president of Camex to issue the resolution are present due to the nature of the matter, that is, the defense of the national industry. In the first instance, the companies obtained an injunction. After examining the case, the Federal Regional Canada Email List Court of the 1st Region ordered the case to be sent to the STJ. According to TRF-1, it is the responsibility of the higher court to process and judge a request for a Writ of Mandamus against an act by a member of Camex, as it is a collegiate body made up of State ministers. Minister Denise Arruda, rapporteur of the case at the STJ, considered that the allegations regarding the fixed percentage of anti-dumping duties do not deserve examination by the collegiate.
She recalled that the Writ of Mandamus protects a liquid and certain right, and that if it depends on subsequent proof, it is neither liquid nor certain for security purposes. Denise Arruda highlighted that there is no reason for the companies' argument regarding the disproportionality in the percentage, because the application of anti-dumping duties does not aim to equalize prices.But its perverse effect is to fail to provide certainty and security to the administrative act, failing the administration to exercise the necessary self-protection of its acts, and thus causing poorly instructed cases to end up in the Judiciary, increasing the risk of failure and loss. to the public interest that apparently wanted to be protected. The decision made by the Federal Supreme Court clearly demonstrates this mistake.