Church & Dwight (Australia) Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs

This matter concerned an appeal by Church & Dwight (Australia) Pty Ltd against a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs regarding the classification of goods, specifically Curash baby wipes. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these baby wipes were classifiable as goods impregnated with detergent for the purposes of the *Customs Tariff Act 1995* (Cth), or alternatively, as medicaments intended for therapeutic or prophylactic use. The case was heard by Deputy Rayment QC P.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the polysorbates present in the baby wipes qualified as "detergents" under the relevant tariff classification, and second, whether the wipes themselves were classifiable as medicaments for therapeutic or prophylactic use. The applicant argued that the polysorbates functioned primarily as emulsifiers, solubilisers, and dispersers, chosen for their low skin irritancy, and that their role was not one of detergency. The respondent contended, supported by expert evidence, that the polysorbates were indeed detergents.

The court's reasoning focused on the ordinary meaning of the term "detergent" and the expert evidence presented. Professor Hibbert, relying on the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) definition, stated that a detergent is a surfactant with cleaning properties in dilute solutions. He testified that polysorbates possess such properties, and that while they may not be the most efficient or cheapest cleaning agents, their ability to reduce surface tension and emulsify fats contributes to a washing action, thus fulfilling the IUPAC definition of a detergent. Although Professor Hibbert acknowledged that polysorbates also function as emulsifiers and that the primary cleaning action might come from the wipe material and water, he did not deny their emulsifying role or their capacity to add to the washing action.

Ultimately, Deputy Rayment QC P affirmed the reviewable decision. The reasons provided indicate that the court found the polysorbates to be detergents for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, thereby disposing of the proceedings. The court deliberately avoided making definitive pronouncements on other potential issues that were argued but not central to the determination, to prevent the creation of non-binding obiter dicta that could complicate future proceedings.