Comptroller-General of Customs v Manurung

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read

Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Comptroller-General of Customs v Manurung [2019] NSWLC 15
Hearing dates: 6 May 2019
Date of orders: 6 June 2019
Decision date: 06 June 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Huntsman LCM
Decision:

Both defendants are convicted and fines imposed as per the orders

Catchwords:

Prohibited imports, Russian military aircraft parts, s16A matters, financial circumstances of defendants; utilitarian value of pleas of guilty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Jinde Huang aka Wei Liu v R [2018] NSWCCA 70

Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4

Mahdi Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178

Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Wu v R [2016] NSWCCA 96

R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; [2000] NSWCCA 317

Category:Sentence
Parties: Comptroller- General of Customs (Prosecution)
Doris Maulina Manurung (Defendant)
Aviation Spare Parts Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Australian Government Solicitor, for the Prosecution
Ms Boyd, solicitor for Defendants
File Number(s): 2018/00389244
2018/00389221
2018/324235

Judgment

Background

  1. Pleas of guilty were entered by both defendants, to a number of charges as detailed below, after some period of negotiation, and the matters were listed for sentence. The sentencing hearing consisted of evidence and submissions, by the defendants, and the Crown. Agreed facts were tendered. Both defendants were charged with Customs Act1901 (Cth) offences, in relation to offences arising in the course of the import and export of aircraft parts for Russian military aircraft. The two defendants are Aviation Spare Parts Pty Ltd (ASP), a registered company, trading in New South Wales; and Dorisma Manurung (Manurung). Manurung is the spouse of Gregory Skierka (Skierka), who is the sole director of ASP. Ms Manurung is also the Sales Manager of ASP and has the day-to-day control of the business activities of ASP. The background to this matter is well set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts tendered at the sentencing hearing, and states as follows.

  2. ASP has been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, 7 counts of importing prohibited imports, namely Russian origin military aircraft parts, contrary to s 233(1)(b) of the Act. The offences span the period July 2015 to April 2017 and relate to 11 separate importations (described in the Court Attendance Notice as Goods 1 to Goods 11 respectively).

  3. ASP has also been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, 1 count of causing a statement to be made to an officer of Customs that was false or misleading in a material particular, namely that goods for export were described as a 'Head Up Display', when in fact the good for export was a 'H019-02 A3 Transmitter', contrary to s243U(1)of the Act.

  4. Manurung has been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, 7 counts of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or being directly or indirectly concerned in the commission of offences against the Act by ASP, namely the 7 counts of importing prohibited imports, being Russian origin military aircraft parts (s 233(1)(b) read with s 236 of the Act).

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Comptroller-General of Customs v Manurung and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWLC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Comptroller-General of Customs brought proceedings against two defendants in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging they had imported Russian military aircraft parts in contravention of Australian customs laws. The case centred around whether the defendants had breached the Customs Act 1901 by importing these items without the necessary approvals and whether their pleas of guilty should impact the penalties imposed. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate fines based on the defendants' financial circumstances and the utilitarian value of their guilty pleas.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the applicability of section 16A of the Customs Act, which provides for the imposition of fines, and the assessment of the defendants' financial circumstances to determine an appropriate penalty. The court also had to consider the impact of the defendants' early pleas of guilt on the severity of the fines imposed. The defendants argued that their pleas should mitigate the penalties, while the Comptroller-General contended that the breaches were serious and warranted substantial fines.

The court found that the defendants had indeed imported the prohibited items without the necessary approvals, thus breaching the Customs Act. In assessing the appropriate fines, the court took into account the defendants' financial circumstances, determining that a lesser penalty would not serve the utilitarian purpose of deterring similar breaches in the future. The court also considered the value of the defendants' early pleas of guilt but concluded that the breaches were of such a nature that they warranted significant fines despite the pleas. The court ultimately imposed fines on both defendants, finding that the penalties should reflect the seriousness of the breaches while also considering the mitigating factor of the pleas of guilty.

The court's orders included the conviction of both defendants and the imposition of fines. The specific amounts of the fines were determined based on the detailed assessment of the defendants' financial situations and the deterrent effect required by the breaches. This decision highlights the court's approach to balancing the deterrent effect of penalties with the mitigating effect of early pleas of guilt in cases involving breaches of customs laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

Both defendants are convicted and fines imposed as per the orders

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.