Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Granite Arms Pty Ltd

The Chief Executive Officer of Customs appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the importation of handguns. The dispute arose when handguns, initially contracted for purchase by a second respondent, were consigned to the first respondent, Granite Arms Pty Ltd, in Victoria after the importer's permit was rescinded by Queensland Police. The core issue was whether these handguns were liable to be forfeited to the Crown.

The High Court was required to determine two principal legal questions. Firstly, whether the handguns were liable to condemnation as forfeited goods under the *Customs Act 1901* (Cth). Secondly, and crucially, the Court had to decide whether a consignee of handguns, in this instance Granite Arms Pty Ltd, qualified as "the importer" of those articles for the purposes of sub-item 4.1(a) of Schedule 6, Part 1 of the *Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956*. This sub-item mandates that an importer of a handgun must hold a relevant police statement regarding their licence or authorisation to possess the handgun.

The Court reasoned that the definition of "importer" in the *Customs Act* encompassed not only the person who brought the goods into Australia but also the owner or consignee of the goods. Applying this broad definition, the Court concluded that Granite Arms Pty Ltd, as the consignee, was indeed "the importer" for the purposes of the Regulations. Consequently, because Granite Arms Pty Ltd did not possess the required police statement, the handguns were deemed to be "special forfeited goods" under the *Customs Act*.

The appeal was allowed with costs. The orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia were set aside. In their place, the High Court ordered that the appeal to the Federal Court be allowed with costs, that the orders of the Federal Court made on 23 May 2003 be set aside, and that it be declared that the handguns imported under the specified entry were "special forfeited goods". The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the cross-claim.