Commonwealth of Australia v Palmanova Pty Ltd

The appeal was brought by the Commonwealth of Australia against Palmanova Pty Ltd, a private respondent. The dispute concerns an artefact made from black basalt that was purchased by the respondent online from a gallery in Colorado, USA. The artefact was intercepted upon its entry into Australia and seized by customs officials under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act). The primary issue in the case is whether the artefact is liable to forfeiture under section 14(1) of the Act. The Act came into effect on 1 July 1987. The respondent argued that section 14(1) of the Act applies only to exports that occurred on or after the commencement of the Act. However, the Commonwealth argued that the Act applies to exports that occurred prior to its commencement, provided that the importation of the object occurred after 1 July 1987. The court held that the appeal should be allowed and that the Artefact is liable to forfeiture under section 14(1) of the Act. The court found that the Artefact was exported from Bolivia prior to the commencement of the Act but was imported into Australia after 1 July 1987. The court concluded that the use of the present perfect tense in section 14(1)(a) of the Act implies that the exportation should have some relevant connection to the operation of the Act, i.e., the exportation should have occurred whilst the Act is in force. The court also found that the connection necessary to explain the use of the present perfect tense could be provided by the relationship between the acts of import and export. The court concluded that the Artefact is liable to forfeiture under section 14(1) of the Act, and the said object is forfeited.