Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd
[2020] HCA 2
Date of Hearing: 17 October 2019 Date of Judgment: 5 February 2020
S161/2019
ORDER
Appeal dismissed.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
N J Williams SC with D P Hume for the appellant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
S B Lloyd SC with J E Taylor for the respondent (instructed by Clayton Utz)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd
Customs and excise – Customs tariff – Tariff classification – Where no duty owed if goods classifiable as medicaments under heading 3004 of Sch 3 to Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth) – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal found vitamin preparations and garcinia preparations classifiable under heading 3004 – Where Comptroller-General of Customs contended vitamin preparations and garcinia preparations classifiable under heading 1704 ("sugar confectionery") or heading 2106 ("food preparations") so that duty owed – Whether vitamin preparations and garcinia preparations excluded from heading 3004 by Note 1(a) to Ch 30 of Sch 3 to Customs Tariff Act– Whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in classifying vitamin preparations and garcinia preparations under heading 3004.
Words and phrases – "duties of customs", "error of law", "essential character", "food preparations", "food supplements", "foods", "French language", "Harmonized System", "Harmonized System Convention", "medicament", "most akin", "ordinary meaning", "products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses", "tariff classification", "Vienna Convention", "vitamin".
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44. Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 273GA. Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth), Schs 2, 3. International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (1983). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Art 33.
KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND GORDON JJ. This appeal is from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court[1] on an appeal on questions of law under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)[2] from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[3] under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)[4]. It raises issues concerning the construction and application of provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Tariff Act") which implement the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System[5] ("the Harmonized System Convention").
[3]Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs[2017] AATA 1816.
[4]Section 273GA.
[5][1988] ATS 30.
The issues arise in the context of a dispute between the Comptroller-General of Customs and Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd about the tariff classification of goods imported into Australia from Germany. The goods were referred to by the Tribunal and the Full Court as "vitamin preparations" and "garcinia preparations".
The Tariff Act imposes duties of customs on goods imported into Australia[6].…
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.
Continue reading Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories P...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 2
Case
[2020] HCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Comptroller-General of Customs appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that certain vitamin preparations and garcinia preparations imported by Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd were classifiable as medicaments under heading 3004 of Schedule 3 to the *Customs Tariff Act 1995* (Cth), meaning no customs duty was payable. The Comptroller-General contended that these goods should instead be classified under heading 1704 (sugar confectionery) or heading 2106 (food preparations), which would attract duty.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the vitamin and garcinia preparations were excluded from heading 3004 by Note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of Schedule 3 to the *Customs Tariff Act*, and whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in law in its classification of these goods. The interpretation of the term "medicament" within the context of the Customs Tariff and the application of relevant International Convention notes were key to resolving these issues.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had correctly applied the principles of tariff classification. The Court affirmed that the primary consideration for classification under heading 3004 is whether the goods are presented for therapeutic or prophylactic uses. In this instance, the Tribunal's finding that the vitamin and garcinia preparations, as presented by Pharm-A-Care, were intended for such uses was upheld. The Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that Note 1(a) to Chapter 30 did not operate to exclude these goods from heading 3004, and that the Tribunal had correctly considered the essential character and purpose of the goods.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
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
KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND GORDON JJ
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND GORDON JJ