Donohoe v Britz - [1904] HCA 53

Solicitors, for appellant, Lee, Colquhoun &Bassett. Solicitor, for respondent, The Crown Solicitor of New South Wales.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] DONOHOE. BRITZ Commonwealth Customs Act (No. 6 of 1901), secs. 130, 144, 154 (a), 234 (e)--Un-

true declaration-Proprietary medicine-Value for duty __" Ordinary market value in the country whence imported."-Crestoma Tariff (No. 14 of 1902), sees. 4. 5, 6-Time of imposition of uniform duties-Validation of collections under tariff proposals- Effect of retrospective legislation-Special leare to appeal- June, 13, 14, Delay.

On 16th October, 1901, the respondent made a declaration as to the value of certain medicinal preparations imported by him from abroad, which were not dutiable under the then existing tariff of New South Wales, but were made dutiable under the Customs Tariff 1902.

On 10th November, 1903, the respondent was charged under sec. 234 of the Customs Act, with having made an untrue statement in his declaration. It was admitted that the statement was true in the natural and ordinary meaning of its terms, and that it was only untrue when construed in the light of the artificial rule laid down in sec. 144 of the Customs Act 1901, for valuing goods of that kind (a).

(a) 144. All medicinal or toilet preparations not completely manufactured but imported for completing the manufacture thereof or for the manufacture of any other article by the addition of any ingredient or by mixing such preparations or by putting up or labelling the same alone or with other articles or compounds under any proprietary or trade name shall be irrespective of cost valued for duty and duty shall be paid thereon at the ordinary market value in the country whence imported of the completed preparation when put up and labelled under such proprietary or trade name less the actual cost of labour and material used or expended in Australia in completing the manufacture thereof or of putting up or labelling the same.

1 CLR 392

The respondent was convicted and fined. Held, that the conviction was bad, that the respondent was not guilty of any offence against the law existing at the date on which he made the declaration, and that there was nothing in the retrospective sections of the Customs Tariff Act 1902 that rendered him liable to be prosecuted subsequently in respect of it.

Held also, on motion to rescind the order granting special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court, that the order was properly made, the question raised being an important question of law, and of general interest to the mercantile com- munity, that the attendance of the appellant at the taxation of costs, after the judgment of the Full Court appealed from, was not an act of acquiescence that would perempt the appeal, and that a delay of two months in applying for leave to appeal, the respondent not having been prejudiced thereby, was not, under the circumstances, a sufficient ground for rescinding the order of leave.

Decision of the Supreme Court (1904), 4 S.R.…

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 Donohoe v Britz

Details

AGLC: Donohoe v Britz [1904] HCA 53
Case: [1904] HCA 53
Decision Date: 29 June 1904

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Donohoe against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the importation of proprietary medicines. The dispute arose from the valuation of these medicines for the purposes of customs duty, with the importer, Donohoe, allegedly making an untrue declaration regarding their value. The core of the matter involved the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Commonwealth Customs Act 1901* and the *Customs Tariff 1902*.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: firstly, whether the declarations made by Donohoe regarding the "ordinary market value in the country whence imported" were untrue, thereby contravening section 234(e) of the *Customs Act*; secondly, the correct method for determining the value for duty of proprietary medicines under the relevant legislation; and thirdly, the legal effect of the *Customs Tariff 1902*, particularly its retrospective application and validation of collections made under earlier tariff proposals, in light of sections 4, 5, and 6 of that Act.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of "ordinary market value" and the evidentiary burden placed upon the importer. It was held that the value for duty should be the price at which the goods would be ordinarily sold in the principal markets of the country of export. The Court found that the declarations made by Donohoe were indeed untrue, as the stated values did not reflect this ordinary market value. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the validity of the retrospective provisions of the *Customs Tariff 1902*, confirming that collections made under tariff proposals prior to the Act's formal passage were lawful.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Orders