Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Petroleum Suppliers Pty Ltd
[2003] VSC 240
•27 June 2003
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
No. 7634 of 1998
| COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM SUPPLIERS PTY LTD (ACN 006 510 247) AND OTHERS | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | BONGIORNO J. | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 March 2003 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 June 2003 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Petroleum Suppliers Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSC 240 | |
---
Customs & Excise – excise prosecution – evasion of excise duty by blending - Excise Act 1901 (Cth) s 61, s 120, s 133, s 136 - Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1993 (Cth) – Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No.2) 1993 (Cth)
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr B. Walters SC with Mr G. Livermore | Australian Government Solicitor |
| For the Defendant | Mr B. Woinarski QC with Mrs M. Lodge | Blake Dawson Waldron |
HIS HONOUR:
By a Writ filed in this Court on 29 October 1998 the Chief Executive Officer of Customs brought proceedings against Australian Petroleum Suppliers Pty Ltd, (APS) G V Liquid Tankers Pty Ltd (GVLT), R P M Commodities Pty Ltd (RPM), Kelvin Ernest Sidebottom and Raymond Leslie Sidebottom alleging breaches of the ExciseAct 1901 (Cth) and seeking declarations that the defendants committed offences under the Act, orders that they be convicted and the imposition of penalties in respect of such convictions. As a result of a legislative change by an Amended Writ filed 10 January 2003 the plaintiff's name was changed to the Commissioner of Taxation.
The proceeding brought by the plaintiff is an excise prosecution within the meaning of s 133 of the Act which provides, by s 136, that it is to be conducted in accordance with the usual practice and procedure of the Court in civil cases.
These prosecutions concern the evasion of excise duty by operators in the petroleum industry in Numurkah, Victoria by a practice known as blending; in this case the blending of other petroleum products with automotive diesel fuel or distillate. The tax evasion occurs because the products added to the diesel fuel in the blending process are either not subject to excise or, if they are subject to excise, are dutiable at a lower rate than is the diesel fuel to which they are added. Blending of this nature, which enables the evasion of excise duty, is to be distinguished from lawful blending of various petroleum products carried out pursuant to an appropriate licence, for the purpose of producing a diesel fuel with a lower flash point for use in colder climates, particularly in winter.
The scheme employed by the defendants in this case was relatively simple. They bought genuine diesel fuel and blended it with cheaper petroleum products such as kerosene, heating oil, waste oil and solvents. These lower cost items attracted either no duty, or a much lower rate of duty, as they are not normally intended for use as fuel.
APS acquired genuine diesel fuel, upon which appropriate excise had been paid, from a company, Neumann Dredging Co Pty Ltd which operated in Bundamba, a suburb of Brisbane. Using tankers owned or operated by GVLT this diesel fuel was conveyed to the APS depot in Numurkah, Victoria which was owned by RPM. Simultaneously, APS also acquired heating oil, waste oil, kerosene and various solvents from a number of suppliers and conveyed this material to Numurkah also, using GVLT's tankers. At the depot in Numurkah the diesel and non diesel products were mixed and the blended product subsequently sold as diesel fuel.
The legislative scheme which prohibits the blending of diesel fuel without a licence is contained in the Customs and Excise Legislation AmendmentAct 1993 (Cth) and the Excise Tariff AmendmentAct (No 2) 1993 (Cth). This legislation provides that where blending occurs the entire resultant product attracts the excise payable on diesel fuel even if some of its components are, of themselves, non dutiable.
As the claim was framed by the plaintiff in his statement of claim the criminal activities of the defendants were divided into two separate periods namely from 1 July 1996 to 13 January 1997 (the first period) and from 14 January 1997 to 1 August 1997 (the second period). During each of these periods the corporate entities named as defendants namely APS, GVLT and RPM were all controlled by Kelvin and Raymond Sidebottom, the fourth and fifth defendants. Using a complex system of transactions they initiated, controlled and directed the production of blended diesel fuel over the periods referred to for the purpose of enriching themselves and their corporate entities at the expense of the rest of the Australian taxpaying public. It is this activity which has brought them before this Court. This legislation renders them liable as accessories.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the excise law in a number of different ways.
Each time an act of "blending" occurred (and some 1,156 of such acts were alleged in the statement of claim) an offence was committed under s 35 of the ExciseAct 1901 (Cth). The maximum penalty in respect of each such offence is $5,000.
Once blended diesel fuel is produced it becomes "excisable goods
under the control of Customs” and must not be moved, altered or interfered with except as authorised by law. Accordingly, every time the blended fuel was removed from a tank at Numurkah the defendants committed offences under s 61 of the ExciseAct 1901 (Cth) in respect of each such offence a penalty of $20,000 is prescribed.
Evasion of the payment of duty itself is an offence under s 120 of the Excise Act 1901 (Cth). Dixon J (as he then was) in Denver Chemical Manufacturing Co v Commissioner of Taxation (NSW)[1] considered it unwise to attempt to define the word "evasion". He considered that it meant more than "to avoid" and more than a mere withholding of information or the mere furnishing of misleading information. His Honour considered that it was:
". . . probably safe to say that some blameworthy act or omission on the part of the taxpayer or those for whom he is responsible is contemplated."
See also Australian Jam Co Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation[2] and Ludwigs Canberra Bond Cellar Pty Ltd v Sheen[3]
[1](1949) 79 CLR 296 at 313.
[2](1953) 88 CLR 23 per Fulligar J at 38-39.
[3](1982) 65 FLR 347 per Gallop J.
In this case the defendants engaged in a deliberate, well planned commercial enterprise based upon blending cheaper petroleum products with genuine diesel fuel and then selling the blended product as distillate without paying the requisite duty. This offence was committed each time a quantity of excisable blended petroleum product was manufactured; that is to say on something over 1,150 occasions.
Had this matter proceeded as a contested trial the plaintiff's case would have been proved largely by documentary material seized from the premises of the defendants or obtained from commercial enterprises with whom the defendants transacted business. Those documents included invoices, faxes, trucking records, diaries, financial records and other material seized from the defendants' premises including a document entitled "Depot Stock Balance". They also included documents seized from suppliers of diesel fuel and other petroleum products to APS and documents seized from the National Australia Bank with respect to the defendants' accounts.
The Depot Stock Balance, a document found on a filing cabinet adjacent to the fourth defendant, Kelvin Sidebottom's, desk in the Numurkah premises upon the execution of a search warrant, is a handwritten spreadsheet which almost proves the plaintiff's allegations of fuel blending on its own. Expert handwriting analysis undertaken on behalf of the plaintiff demonstrated that Kelvin Sidebottom made the vast majority of entries in this document. It collated information from other documents into one record, thus enabling he and Raymond Sidebottom to monitor and record purchases, sales, movements and stock on hand. It records transactions concerning diesel fuel, kerosene, heating oil, waste oil, transformer oil and solvents. Although the importance of this document as virtually conclusive proof of the defendants' criminality must not be underestimated there is no need, in the context of the defendant's now having admitted all relevant allegations, to analyse it further. It is sufficient to describe it, as counsel for the plaintiff before this Court did, as the "smoking gun" which, by virtue of its being largely in the handwriting of one of the defendants, pointed inexorably to his and his co-defendant’s guilt of the offences alleged.
As well as the proceeding with which this Court is now concerned the plaintiff (or his predecessor the CEO of Customs) and the defendants have been engaged in three other proceedings in the Federal Court and one other proceeding in the Court of Appeal of this State arising out of their evasion of tax in the course of the operation of their fuel businesses. Two of the Federal Court proceedings brought by the defendants against the plaintiff (or his predecessor) have been dismissed with costs by Finklestein J and Goldberg J on 12 May 2000 and 15 October 2002 respectively. An appeal brought by the defendants Kelvin Sidebottom and Raymond Sidebottom against a decision of Beach J in this Court of 12 June 2002 was dismissed with costs by the Court of Appeal on 19 February 2003.
Accordingly, as this proceeding approached trial, the defendants were still engaged in litigation with the plaintiff in the Federal Court in a recovery proceeding in which the plaintiff claimed the sum of $9,222,020.79 against each of the defendants for an amount equivalent to the excise duty on the excisable blended petroleum products illegally produced between 17 July 1996 and 1 August 1997.
Against this background the defendants have now agreed with the Commissioner that they will admit having evaded excise duty by admitting to having performed a number of the acts of evasion alleged against them in the statement of claim in this proceeding. They have also agreed to join with the Commissioner in submitting to this Court that fines should be imposed in respect of each of those contraventions. Counsel for the Commissioner and the defendants have informed the Court that the quantum of the fines which they submit ought to be imposed was fixed by the Commissioner and accepted by him as reflecting the gravity of the criminal conduct in which the defendants engaged. Finally, all the defendants except Kelvin Sidebottom have agreed to judgment in the Federal Court recovery proceeding still current against them in the sum claimed, namely $9,222,029.79
The defendants' admissions and the parties' joint submissions on penalty, if accepted by the Court, would result in each of APS and GVLT being fined $26,112,22l, Kelvin Sidebottom being fined $100,000 and Raymond Sidebottom being fined $1,100,000. These amounts are in addition to the judgment for $9,222,029.79 against all the defendants except Kelvin Sidebottom in the Federal Court recovery proceeding. The Commissioner does not now seek any findings or penalties against RPM, the landlord of the Numurkah depot.
Mr B Woinarski QC, counsel for the defendants, gave the Court a non-contentious account of the background of the fourth and fifth defendants, Kelvin and Raymond Sidebottom and tendered written references attesting to their good standing in the Numurkah community before these offences came to light.
Kelvin Sidebottom is aged 68. His background is not that of a not atypical country businessman. He left school at the age of 14, worked on his father's farm, share farmed himself and then purchased a livestock transport business. In 1956 he became the Shell fuel agent for the Numurkah district and built a service station on the Golbourn Valley Highway. He continued to prosper and eventually acquired a BMC and then a General Motors franchise trading under the name of Kells Motors.
In 1972 Kelvin Sidebottom began operating petrol tankers in the Numurkah and Southern Riverina areas. By 1977 he was employing some 35 people when he started a caravan and leisure products sales centre in Numurkah and became involved in a holiday resort, the Numurkah Lakeside Village. This venture, however, did not prosper producing financial difficulties which cost him most if not all of his assets. Undaunted, he became an employee in a car rental firm until eventually he purchased the car rental business and again set up a trucking business. He worked with his son, the fifth defendant until he retired in 1999.
Kelvin Sidebottom has no prior convictions and has contributed substantially to his community over the years. He was involved in APEX, the local Ambulance Committee and the Chamber of Commerce. He was a counsellor of the Shire of Numurkah from 1970 to 1975 and President of the Shire in 1974. In recent times he has been in indifferent health, having suffered two serious falls.
Counsel for the defendants placed great emphasis on Mr Sidebottom's work with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria as do a number of the written testimonials which were tendered.
Raymond Sidebottom, Kelvin Sidebottom's son and a co-director in the corporate defendants, is 44. He has three unmarried children, all of them engaged in secondary and tertiary education. He completed year 11 at school himself, qualified as a fitter and turner and then worked for his father from the late 1970's in the Numurkah Lakeside Village project. When his father's businesses had their financial troubles he purchased one of his father's former tankers and commenced his own transport business which eventually became GVLT. Subsequently he set up APS.
By 1988 Raymond Sidebottom was operating some 14 semi-trailer tankers which he continued to do until the early 1990's when the large oil companies changed their transport strategies, having an adverse effect on contractors such as him. He scaled down his business and commenced transporting fuel and chemicals which he bought and on-sold to other contractors and manufacturers.
The description of the fourth and fifth defendants which I have given could be applied to countless other father and son combinations of businessmen operating in cities and provincial centres throughout this country. What singles the Sidebottoms out from others is the fact that under a veneer of respectability between July 1996 and August 1997 they were engaged, with their companies, in a systematic, calculated and massive fraud on their fellow Australians. That they engaged in an elaborate series of subterfuges to conceal their fraudulent activity exacerbates their guilt.
In L Vogel & Son Pty Ltd v Anderson[4] Kitto J made the obvious point that the detection of frauds in the area of customs and excise is not always easy. His Honour went on:
"No doubt ordinary concepts of honesty and of civic responsibility suffice to ensure a great deal of fair dealing with the Customs, but for some people little seems to matter but fear of the consequences of discovery. The Customs Act makes those consequences potentially drastic. It is for the courts to make them, in suitable cases, drastic in fact, for otherwise traders who are not saved by qualms of conscience from willingness to defraud their fellow citizens may waive the profits they hope for against the penalties they have cause to fear and find the gamble worthwhile."
His Honour's comments in the context of a Customs prosecution are equally applicable to the present case.
[4](1968) 120 CLR 157
The Sidebottoms are indeed fortunate that in this case they have been prosecuted in the manner in which they have pursuant to provisions which do not provide for gaol sentences. Frauds of the magnitude in which they have engaged, had they been prosecuted in the criminal courts, would have almost certainly attracted custodial sentences.
Tax evasion is a cancer on the body politic. It is important that those who engage in it be publicly subjected to significant penalties to deter others who might be minded to emulate their example. Whilst tax evaders such as the Sidebottoms can call in aid their prior good records as deserving of consideration in the sentencing process, its significance is somewhat diminished when their criminal activities are carried out under the cloak of respectability which such records confer upon them.
It is in the interests of the community generally that complex litigation such as that which would have been involved in prosecuting the plaintiff's claims in this proceeding be avoided if at all possible. Accordingly, provided the Court considers that the parties submissions as to penalty fall within the appropriate range and adequately reflect the criminality involved in the offences alleged, it should not, without good cause, reject those submissions.[5]
[5]Comptroller-General of Customs v Perri Cutten of Australia Pty Ltd unreported Southwell J Victorian Supreme Court 21 March 1991; Comptroller-General of Customs v Kingswood Distillery Pty Ltd unreported Sperling J Supreme Court NSW 5 December 1997; Walsh v N & M Gangemi Nominees Pty Ltd unreported Templeman J Supreme Court WA 18 November 1999 [2001] WASC 79; N W Frozen Food Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 141 ALR 644.
In this case there are a number of aggravating factors which must be considered in assessing the question of penalty. The offences involved systematic and deliberate frauds on the revenue over a period of 13 months. They were committed for commercial gain and involved the creation of a false paper trail to disguise their commission. As has already been noted such offences are difficult and expensive to detect and undermine a legislative scheme which is, to a large extent, dependant for its efficacy upon the honesty and integrity of those involved in the relevant industry. The commission of offences of this nature commercially disadvantages honest operators who pay their tax and exposes purchasers of blended fuel not only to the risk of damage to engines in which it is used but also to the potential risk caused by unregulated admixtures of volatile compounds. In this instance the defendants' admission of guilt and consent to being convicted was a very late facing by them of the reality that the matters alleged against them would be proved. As a demonstration of contrition it is of minimal significance.
Finally, deterrence, both specific and general is a central consideration in a legislative scheme where self assessment and disclosure is the expected norm; it being impossible, as a matter of practicality, for every transaction of every operator to be audited.
On the other side of the ledger the matters I have already adverted to of the defendants' prior good record, Kelvin Sidebottom's age and health and the admission of guilt, although late, are factors which the defendants are entitled to take into account.
In all the circumstances I consider the penalties submitted by the parties as appropriate to be appropriate and they will be imposed in this case together with declarations of guilt and convictions against the defendants.
Orders
The Court will make declarations and orders as follows:
1.That Australian Petroleum Supplies Pty Ltd committed the following offences:
(a)Ten (10) instances of manufacturing excisable goods, namely blended petroleum product, other than pursuant to the Excise Act 1901 (“the Act”) and a licence granted thereunder, in contravention of s. 35 of the Act, as specified in movements of each blended petroleum product with the following numbers set out in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim in this proceeding:-
(i) 5 (ii) 126 (iii) 298 (iv) 602 (v) 763 (vi) 822 (vii) 949 (viii) 1034.1 (ix) 1122 (x) 1139.1
(b)Ten (10) instances of moving, altering or interfering with excisable goods subject to the control of the Customs, namely excisable blended petroleum product, except as authorised by the Act, in contravention of s. 61 of the Act, as specified in movements with the following dates and numbers in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the Statement of Claim in the proceeding:-
(i) 18 July 1996 (movement no. 4 in the Third Schedule);
(ii) 9 August 1996 (movement no. 67 in the Third Schedule);
(iii) 8 October 1996 (movement no. 310 in the Third Schedule);
(iv)7 December 1996 (movement no. 633 in the Third Schedule);
(v) 4 January 1997 (movement no. 770 in the Third Schedule);
(vi)2 February 1997 (29800 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(vii)9 March 1997 (32890 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(viii)22 April 1997 (33010 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(ix)28 May 1997 (33080 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(x)27 June 1997 (48360 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule).
(c)Two (2) instances of evading excise duty which was payable, in contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, which offences occurred in respect of each of the following periods:-
(i)First Period, being from 17 July 1996 to 13 January 1997 ($2,240,658.24 in duty evaded);
(ii)Second Period, being from 14 January 1997 to 1 August 1997 ($4,179,751.27 in duty evaded).
2. That GV Liquid Tankers Pty Ltd committed the following offences:
(a)Ten (10) instances of manufacturing excisable goods, namely excisable blended petroleum product, other than pursuant to the Act and a licence granted thereunder in contravention of s 35 of the Act, as specified in movements with the following numbers in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim:-
(i) 5
(ii) 126
(iii) 298
(iv) 602
(v) 763
(vi) 822
(vii) 949
(viii) 1034.1
(ix) 1122
(x) 1139.1
(b)Ten (10) instances of moving, altering or interfering with excisable goods subject to the control of the Customs, namely excisable blended petroleum product, except as authorised by the Act in contravention of s 61 of the Act, as specified in movements with the following dates and numbers in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the Statement of Claim in the proceeding:-
(i) 18 July 1996 (movement no. 4 in the Third Schedule);
(ii) 9 August 1996 (movement no. 67 in the Third Schedule);
(iii) 8 October 1996 (movement no. 310 in the Third Schedule);
(iv) 7 December 1996 (movement no. 633 in the Third Schedule);
(v) 4 January 1997 (movement no. 770 in the Third Schedule);
(vi)2 February 1997 (29800 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(vii) 9 March 1997 (32890 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(viii) 22 April 1997 (33010 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(ix) 28 May 1997 (33080 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule);
(x) 27 June 1997 (48360 litres as referred to in the Fourth Schedule).
(c)Two (2) instances of evading excise duty which was payable, in contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, which offences occurred in respect of each of the following periods:-
(i)First Period, being from 17 July 1996 to 13 January 1997 ($2,240,658.24 in duty evaded);
(ii) Second Period, being from 14 January 1997 to 1 August 1997 ($4,179,751.27 in duty evaded).
3. That Kelvin Sidebottom committed the following offences:
(a)Two (2) instances of manufacturing excisable goods, namely blended petroleum product, other than pursuant to the Act and a licence granted thereunder in contravention of s. 35 of the Act, as specified in movements with the following numbers in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim in this proceeding:-
(i) 2
(ii) 813
(b)Two (2) instances of evading excise duty which was payable (in the total sum of $23,139.82), in contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, as specified in movements with the following dates and numbers in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim in this proceeding:-
(i) 16 ($11,280.39 in duty evaded);
(ii) 1014 ($11,859.43 in duty evaded).
4. That Raymond Sidebottom committed the following offences:
(a)Four (4) instances of manufacturing excisable goods, namely blended petroleum product, other than pursuant to the Act and a licence granted thereunder in contravention of s. 35 of the Act, as specified in movements with the following numbers in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim in this proceeding:-
(i) 3
(ii) 604
(iii) 813
(iv) 1029
(b)Twenty-three (23) instances of evading excise duty which was payable (in the total sum of $272,469.57), in contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, as specified in movements with the following numbers in the First and Second Schedules to the Statement of Claim in this proceeding:-
(i) 5 ($10,716.37 in duty evaded);
(ii) 61 ($10,816.97 in duty evaded);
(iii) 127 ($9,038.04 in duty evaded);
(iv) 167 ($10,899.91 in duty evaded);
(v) 233 ($10,264.02 in duty evaded);
(vi) 314 ($11,404.47 in duty evaded);
(vii) 375 ($11,404.47 in duty evaded);
(viii) 476 ($11,013.95 in duty evaded);
(ix) 517 ($11,404.47 in duty evaded);
(x) 586 ($11,456.31 in duty evaded);
(xi) 672 ($16,463.91 in duty evaded);
(xii) 814 ($11,317.99 in duty evaded);
(xiii) 826 ($16,407.84 in duty evaded);
(xiv) 836 ($16,677.89 in duty evaded);
(xv) 853 ($11,592.27 in duty evaded);
(xvi) 863 ($11,474.30 in duty evaded);
(xvii) 871 ($11,450.01 in duty evaded);
(xviii) 898 ($11,502.06 in duty evaded);
(xix) 917 ($11,450.01 in duty evaded);
(xx) 945 ($11,387.56 in duty evaded);
(xxi) 995 ($11,441.34 in duty evaded);
(xxii) 1007 ($11,366.74 in duty evaded);
(xxiii) 1050 ($11,517.67 in duty evaded).
5.There will be an order that each Defendant be convicted of each of the offences committed by them as referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
6. There will be an order that the following penalties be imposed:
Upon AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM SUPPLIES PTY LTD :
(a)for each of the ten contraventions of s. 35 of the Act, a penalty of $4,000, making a total of $40,000;
(b)for each of the ten contraventions of s. 61 of the Act, a penalty of $15,000, making a total of $150,000;
(c)for the contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) in respect of the First Period, a penalty of $8,962,633 (being approximately four times the duty short-paid); and
(d)for the contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) in respect of the Second Period, a penalty of $16,959,588 (being approximately four times the duty short-paid),
making a total penalty against AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM SUPPLIES PTY LTD of $26,112,221.00.
Upon GV LIQUID TANKERS PTY LTD :
(a)for each of the ten contraventions of s. 35 of the Act, a penalty of $4,000, making a total of $40,000;
(b)for each of the ten contraventions of s. 61 of the Act, a penalty of $15,000, making a total of $150,000;
(c)for the contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) in respect of the First Period, a penalty of $8,962,633 (being approximately four times the duty short-paid); and
(d)for the contravention of s. 120(1)(iv) in respect of the Second Period, a penalty of $16,959,588 (being approximately four times the duty short-paid);
making a total penalty against GV LIQUID TANKERS PTY LTD of $26,112,221.00;
Upon Kelvin Sidebottom
(a)for each of the two contraventions of s. 35 of the Act, a penalty of $4,000, making a total of $8,000; and
(b)for each of the two contraventions of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, penalties of $45,000 and $47,000 respectively (being in each case approximately four times the duty short-paid), making a total of $92,000.
making a total penalty against Kelvin Sidebottom of $100,000; and
Upon Raymond Sidebottom:
(a)for each of the four contraventions of s. 35 of the Act, a penalty of $4,000, making a total of $16,000; and
(b)for each of the following twenty-three contraventions of s. 120(1)(iv) of the Act, the following penalties (being in each case approximately four times the duty short-paid) making a total of $1,084,000:-
Movement no.
referable to each
contravention Penalty
5 $44,000
61 $44,000
127 $36,000
167 $44,000
233 $41,000
314 $46,000
375 $45,000
476 $44,000
517 $45,000
586 $45,000
672 $64,000
814 $45,000
826 $65,000
836 $67,000
853 $48,000
863 $45,000
871 $45,000
898 $45,000
917 $45,000
945 $45,000
995 $45,000
1007 $45,000
1050 $46,000
together making a total penalty against Raymond Sidebottom of $1,100,000.
7.There will be an order that AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM SUPPLIES PTY LTD, GV LIQUID TANKERS PTY LTD, Kelvin Sidebottom and Raymond Sidebottom jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff’s costs including reserved costs of this proceeding.
8.There will be an order that this proceeding as against RPM Commodities Pty Ltd be struck out with no order as to costs.
---
2
1
0