Comptroller-General of Customs v Parker - [2006] NSWSC 390

Reported Decision:
200 FLR 44

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Comptroller-General of Customs v Stephen Edward Parker [2006] NSWSC 390

HEARING DATE(S): 12 - 15, 18 - 21, 26 - 27 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

DECISION: 1. (i) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence of moving or interfering, without authorisation of the Customs Act 1901, between 1 August 1987 and 31 May 1990, goods that were subject to the control of Customs; (ii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 1 August 1987 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $1,447,061.70 payable on 43,054.5 litres of alcohol liquid (being Scotch whisky); (iii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 13 November 1987 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $90,457.95 payable on 2,691.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (iv) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 17 June 1988 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (v) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 27 June 1988 and 31 May 1990 he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (vi) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 27 June 1988 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (vii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 28 July 1988 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (viii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 31 July 1988 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (ix) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 19 September 1989 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (x) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 6 October 1989 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (xi) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 25 January 1990 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (xii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 29 January 1990 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (xiii) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 30 January 1990 and 31 May 1990, he evaded duty of $143,259.26 payable on 4,262.4 litres of alcohol liquid (Scotch whisky); (xiv) that Stephen Edward Parker is convicted of the offence that, between 31 January 1990 and 31 May…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Comptroller-General of Customs v Parker 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: [2006] NSWSC 390
Decision Date: 8 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Comptroller-General of Customs v Parker, the plaintiff, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, sought to prosecute Parker for thirteen offences under the Customs Act 1901. The offences included evasion of duty payable under the Act, unauthorised movement of goods under bond, and warehousing of goods with deferral of duty. The dispute centred around the importation of alcoholic liquor and the alleged failure to pay duties on these goods. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether section 249 of the Customs Act 1901 imposed a five-year limitation period on the commencement of prosecutions under the Act, and if the prosecution was initiated within this period. Another issue was whether the leave granted to plead a cause of action under Part 20 r4(5) and r5A of the Supreme Court Rules was consistent with section 249 of the Commonwealth Statute. Additionally, the court examined whether the doctrine of estoppel applied in this case, considering the plaintiff's acceptance of payment by Parker, and if this estopped the plaintiff from pursuing further defalcations. The court also needed to determine whether Parker committed the offence of unauthorised movement of goods under bond by causing the movement, even if he did not physically move the goods himself.

The court held that section 249 of the Customs Act 1901 did not impose a five-year limitation period on the commencement of prosecutions, and thus the prosecution was not barred by any such limitation. Regarding the Supreme Court Rules, the court found that the leave granted to plead a cause of action was not inconsistent with the provisions of section 249. The court further determined that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case, as there was no representation by Customs officers that would have induced Parker to act to his detriment, and no reliance by Parker on any such representation. The court also found that the plaintiff's failure to give evidence was not significant in this context. The court held that an offence of unauthorised movement of goods under bond could be committed by a person who causes the movement, even if they do not physically move the goods themselves. The offence was established by proving that Parker caused the unauthorised movement. The meaning of "evasion" was also considered, with the court finding that the offence was established by proof that Parker caused an unauthorised movement of the goods. The court found in favour of the plaintiff on all counts, and orders were made accordingly.

Orders