The International Trade Administration Commission (Itac) is considering scrapping anti-dumping duties on a wide range of goods.

This could result in an influx of cheap imports in industries enjoying legitimate protection against dumped goods from other countries.

Itac's intention was published in the Government Gazette last month. This follows a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling in September which found that Itac had erred in interpreting the allowed five-year period for an anti-dumping duty.

The duties on 31 products, including blankets, chicken pieces, glass, carbon black, aluminium hollowware, stainless steel tubes and pipes, automatic circuit breakers and paper, could now be lifted prematurely.

Local manufacturers who rely on the duties to protect them against unfair competition from dumped goods are set for a bumpy ride.

Trade consultant Gustav Brink said the existence of some industries in the Southern African Customs Union, and thousands of jobs, could be at risk.

Affected industries would have to bring antidumping applications afresh, but could do so only if they showed that dumping was a material threat.

This would take time as the release of the import statistics lags actual imports by at least two months.

Moreover, Itac takes on average at least three months to initiate an investigation. As a number of industries would be affected, Itac is likely to be inundated by applications, which is likely to slow it down even more.

"The industries concerned could experience significant injury by the time a new investigation is initiated," Brink said.

Itac's notice relates to a case brought by paper importer Progress Office Machines, against the South African Revenue Service, Itac, Trade and Industry Minister Mandisi Mpahlwa and Finance Minister Trevor Manuel in the Supreme Court of Appeal, which the respondents lost.

A 70% antidumping duty was imposed on certain paper products in May 1999, retrospective to November 1998, when a provisional payment was imposed, pending the antidumping investigation.

Progress Offices Machines, which received a R1,6m antidumping duty on four consignments of paper it had imported between January and September 2004, argued that the duty had lapsed in November 2003 -- five years after the provisional notification.

The Appeals Court agreed. It said that the "imposition of the provision payment effectively constitutes the imposition of an antidumping duty".

The five-year period for which an antidumping duty is allowed is calculated from the day of the imposition of the provisional payment, and not as Itac had administered it, after the conclusion of the anti-dumping investigation and upon notification of the final antidumping duty.

The ruling raised questions about the legitimacy of antidumping duties that were implemented retrospectively.

Moreover, sunset reviews (the process of extending a duty in the face of persistent dumping) could also be void since retroactive antidumping had not been legal when the sunset reviews were begun, Brink said.

He questioned the appeals court decision, noting that in about 100 cases where antidumping duties had been imposed retrospectively, Itac had been consistent and therefore had established "clear procedure" on its interpretation of the five-year period.

Itac's interpretation mirrored that of trade administration practice in the US, European Union and India -- three big users of the antidumping instrument.

The only way to test the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals is through a fresh court process.

John Hunt, director of the Paper Manufacturers' Association, said the situation was a serious challenge and that Itac was likely to run into "huge administration problems down the line".