Electracom Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs

Case •

[2022] AATA 2539

•

10 August 2022

Electracom Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs [2022] AATA 2539 (10 August 2022)

Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/8396 & 2020/8398

Re:Electracom Pty Ltd t/a CMS Electracom

APPLICANT

AndComptroller-General of Customs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President B McCabe &
Senior Member A Poljak

Date:10 August 2022

Place:Sydney

The decisions under review are affirmed.

.................................[SGD].......................................

Deputy President B McCabe

CATCHWORDS

CUSTOMS – tariff classification of goods – whether subject goods are subject to special anti-dumping duties – consideration of Report to the Minister No. 148: Certain Aluminium Extrusions Exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China and relevant ministerial notices – consideration of relevant legislation and cases – decisions under review affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth)

Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth)

CASES

Chinese Food and Wine Supplies v Collector of Customs (1987) 72 ALR 591

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd (1971) 46 ALJR 32

Gill v Donald Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180

Solar Juice Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs [2022] AATA 550

Solu Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs [2019] AATA 2584

Thomas Creevey and Associates v Collector of Customs [1995] FCA 1283; (1995) 21 AAR 450.

Time Consultants v Collector of Customs (1987) 76 ALR 313

Times Consultants Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (Qld) (1987) 16 FCR 449

Tridon and Collector of Customs (1982) 4 ALD 615

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Report to the Minister No. 148: Certain Aluminium Extrusions Exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B McCabe
Senior Member A Poljak

10 August 2022

1.Electracom Pty Ltd t/a CMS Electracom (CMS) imports aluminium extrusions designed for use in offices. The extrusions are used to manage what might otherwise be a tangle of computer and power cables that are connected to desks and equipment. The extrusions can be mounted either from the ceiling or the floor. Power boards can also be attached to the extrusion for the purpose of mounting power boards on desks.

  1. These proceedings concern the tariff classification of certain aluminium extrusions (subject goods) imported by CMS pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth) (TariffAct). We must decide whether the extrusions are subject to special duties of Customs (dumping duty). Dumping duty is imposed by the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (Cth) (Anti-Dumping Act) on some aluminium extrusions exported from China (anti-dumping measures). The measures were imposed by Ministerial notices published on 21 October 2010 pursuant to sections 269TG and 269TJ of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (the Act) (the Notices) in respect of certain aluminium extrusions classified to headings 7604, 7608 and 7610 of Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act (the goods under consideration or GUC) and to “like goods”. The decisions under review were to refuse applications for refunds of duties paid on two shipments of aluminium extrusions imported from China by CMS.

  2. On 20 April 2020 the Australian Border Force (ABF) completed a Compliance Assessment under section 214AE of the Act and final GST and Anti-Dumping calculations in relation to a sample of Full Import Declarations submitted on behalf of CMS during the period February 2016 to October 2019.

  3. On 30 June 2020 an application for internal review of the Compliance Assessment was made on behalf of CMS. On 26 August 2020 the ABF determined that the original decision was maintained, and the subject goods were classified to tariff heading 7604.29.00 within Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act.

  4. CMS paid duty on two of the import declarations the subject of the demand, and then lodged two refund applications in respect of those payments. Both refund applications were refused.

  5. The issue for determination in these proceedings are whether the two refund applications were correctly refused. The respondent agrees the refunds are payable if the subject goods are not within the scope of the Notices. In those circumstances, the outcome of the case turns on whether the subject goods were within the scope of the Notices. That requires consideration of whether the extrusions imported by the applicant are the GUC referred to in the Notices or they are “like goods” to the GUC.

  6. The respondent contends the subject goods are classified under heading 7604 within Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act as aluminium profiles which fall squarely within the relevant word description of the GUC in the Notices. Alternatively, if the subject goods are not classified under heading 7604, the word description of the GUC still applies and the subject goods are still “like goods” to which the Notices apply.

  7. CMS argues the subject goods do not fall within the scope of the Notices as the subject goods are classified under either heading 7616 or 8538 within Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act. Alternatively, if the Notices apply to “like goods”, the subject goods are excluded from the scope of the Notices as they are

    “intermediate or finished products that are processed or fabricated to such an extent that they no longer possess the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminium extrusion, but have become a different product”.

    Subject Goods

  8. The subject goods are the aluminium extrusions referred to in the two import declarations that the respondent decided did not qualify for refunds. The goods can be described as follows:

    (a) Three aluminium extrusions used in the Totem Pole products being: the main body of the pole; the lid or access panel; and a segregation plate, usually in 2100mm, 2800mm and 3100mm lengths.

    (b) Two aluminium extrusions used in the Power Pole products being: the main body, and the lid or access panel in 2800mm lengths.

    (c) An aluminium extrusion in 5700mm lengths imported for manufacturing the Athena range of desk mounts (or power and/or data sockets) (Athena Desk Mount).

    Relevant Aspects of the Evidence

  9. In respect of the subject goods, identifying documentary material, technical diagrams, photographs, and product brochures were provided to the Tribunal.

  10. CMS relies on the evidence of Mr Derek Roberts, Manager of Inventory & Production at CMS. He has provided two written statements in these proceedings and gave oral evidence at hearing.

  11. Mr Roberts opined that the Totem Poles, Power Poles and Athena Desk Mounts are not simple aluminium extrusions. They are instead designed to interact specifically with the other components for mounting. He explained the subject goods are identifiable on a wharf side inspection and on an informed inspection as being specifically designed and manufactured to be used as power poles, totem poles and desk mounts for electrical cables and power boards. Further, he said the subject goods were not designed for general use. Mr Roberts explained that after they are imported, the subject goods were assembled into the final products by CMS:

    Assembly steps will include precise cutting length of the extrusion, powder coating if requested, custom fitment of other parts including the Power Module, USB Charging Module, Data Port Provisions, Cable length and style of Main Plug, Ceiling brackets, Floor Brackets, Internal Looms, Instructions. The product is then tested and packed as a finished kit.

  12. The power pole is comprised of two aluminium extrusions that are imported together, and which are designed to fit together to form the complete Power Pole. The Power Pole is specifically designed to supply power to office desks by carrying power and/or data cables. It also provides for the fitting of power points. After importation, CMS assembles the Power Pole extrusions into kits that include the power pole body and cover, an internal conduit for separation of power and data cables, a power switch mounting box and brackets, and other components for mounting the Power Pole to the floor or desk.

  13. The Totem Poles are designed to house power and data cables. The three aluminium extrusions that comprise the Totem Pole are the housing, access panel and segregation plate. The housing is designed to fit the segregation plate, which separates the power and data cables within the pole. When fitted, the access panel closes the gap in the pole housing. The housing is designed to allow brush strips and an earth wire to be fitted within the pole. Like the Power Pole extrusions, the Totem Pole extrusions are packaged after importation into kits which typically include the main body, segregation plates, either the aluminium access panel or brush strips, and ceiling, floor and/or desk installation fittings with screws and bolts.

  14. The Totem Pole and the Power Pole are generally sold by the applicant to its customers in the length as imported. These poles are imported in different lengths, however the 2.8m length poles are more popular, being suitable for a ceiling height of 2.7m.

  15. The Athena Power Rail Extrusion is an irregular “U” shaped aluminium extrusion that is used as the housing for the Athena Desk Mounted Power Units manufactured in Australia by the applicant. The detailed design of the Athena Power Rail Extrusion allows it to fit together with other components that are either imported separately or manufactured locally in Australia. The extrusion is designed so that a USB charging module and power module can be clipped into the main channel of the aluminium rail, and a clamp attached to the rail to allow the completed Athena Desk Mounted Power Unit to be mounted to a desk. After importation, the 5700mm extrusion is cut precisely to the required length required for the particular Athena product being produced. The extrusions are then “punched out” to allow a power cable to pass through; and, in some cases, an additional channel is copy routed to enable a data cable to pass through. On occasion, customers request a power unit with data provision, which requires the Athena Power Rail Extrusion to be cut to length, ‘punched out’ and also routed to create a channel to fit a data ethernet cable.

  16. The respondent relies on the witness statement dated 1 July 2021 of Luke Hawkins, the General Manager of Supply and Industrial Solutions for Capral Limited (Capral). That report was tendered into evidence without objection. Mr Hawkins was not required for cross examination.  

  17. Mr Hawkins’ evidence confirms Capral is Australia’s largest manufacturer and distributor of aluminium products, including aluminium extrusions.

  18. Mr Hawkins summarised the aluminium extrusion manufacturing process in his statement, saying:

    [i]n some cases aluminium extrusions may be subjected to minor further manufacturing processes, such as having holes drilled or punched into the extrusions, or cut to a specific length, with the resulting product still being recognised as an aluminium extrusion rather than as something else

  19. Mr Hawkins explained Capral has manufactured over 13,000 different aluminium extrusions profiles in the last 5 years. These include a range of extrusions with geometric or modified geometric shapes, with fairly simple profiles, and thousands of more complex extrusions. He relevantly stated:

    [m]ost of the more complex extrusions produced by Capral are specifically designed for a particular application, and are unlikely to be used for other purposes.

  20. We note Mr Hawkins also said Capral can design and produce a specific extrusion for a particular application required by a customer, and that it frequently does so. These are commonly referred to as ‘exclusives’, with the design of the profile being produced for a specific customer requirement. These can at times include the customer’s intellectual property.

  21. Significantly, Mr Hawkins stated Capral has manufactured extrusions which are similar to the subject goods, and he said Capral could produce any of the subject goods.

  22. Mr Hawkins insisted the subject goods:

    (a) were “extruded products with a uniform cross-section along their whole length, which [was] the usual result of the aluminium extrusion process;” and

    (b) had not been “subjected to any manufacturing process beyond the usual aluminium extrusion manufacturing processes”.

    Anti-Dumping Measures and Scope of Notices

  23. The Report to the Minister No. 148: Certain Aluminium Extrusions Exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China dated 15 April 2010 (Report 148) details the findings of an investigation into the alleged dumping of certain aluminium extrusions exported from China to Australia.

  24. Copies of the Notices are contained in Report 148. The Notices state they apply to “certain aluminium extrusions (the goods)” classified to headings 7604, 7608 and 7610 of Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act, and to “like goods”. The then Attorney General stated in the Notices that the considerations relevant:

    … to [the] determination of material injury to the Australian industry caused by subsidisation are the size of subsidy margins, the effect of subsidised imports on prices in the Australian market in the form of price undercutting, price suppression and the consequent impact on the Australian industry including loss of sales volume, loss of profits and reduced profitability.

  25. The relevant legal effect of the Notices is that sections 8 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Act apply to the GUC and further exports of “like goods” from China to Australia, and therefore dumping duties and countervailing duties must be collected and paid.

  26. The Notices are a species of delegated legislation and as such the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation generally apply. However, given the nature of the Notices and form and content of Report 148, being in a narrative style, they “ought to be construed in light of practical considerations, rather than a meticulous comparison of the language of their various provisions, such as might be appropriate of an Act of Parliament”: see Gill v Donald Humberstone & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 180 at 183.

  27. Chapter 3 of Report 148 identifies the GUC in the investigation. The abbreviation GUC is defined in Report 148 as referring to the goods, and aluminium extrusions. Paragraph 3.2 provides:

    The GUC are:

    Aluminium extrusions produced via an extrusion process, of alloys having metallic elements falling within the alloy designations published by The Aluminium Association commencing with 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 or 7 (or proprietary or other certifying body equivalents), with the finish being as extruded (mill), mechanical, anodized or painted or otherwise coated, whether or not worked, having a wall thickness or diameter greater than 0.5 mm., with a maximum weight per metre of 27 kilograms and a profile or cross-section which fits within a circle having a diameter of 421 mm.

    The GUC include aluminium extrusion products that have been further processed or fabricated to a limited extent, after aluminium has been extruded through a die. For example, aluminium extrusion products that have been painted, anodised, or otherwise coated, or worked (e.g. precision cut, machined, punched or drilled) fall within the scope of the goods.

    The GUC do not extend to intermediate or finished products that are processed or fabricated to such an extent that they no longer possess the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminium extrusion, but have become a different product. [Emphasis added]

  28. The clear purpose of the Notices and Report 148 is to protect the Australian industry that produces aluminium extrusions that satisfy the requirements of the GUC description. The Notices must be construed accordingly, in accordance with the plain words of the GUC description.

  29. The Notices declare that dumping duty also applies to like goods. “Like goods” is defined in section 269T of the Act as follows:

    like goods, in relation to goods under consideration, means goods that are identical in all respects to the goods under consideration or that, although not alike in all respects to the goods under consideration, have characteristics closely resembling those of the goods under consideration.

  30. CMS contends that the subject goods must be classified to headings 7604, 7608 and 7610 of Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act to come within the scope of the Notices. However, the specific reference to “like goods” in the Notices indicates a wider coverage. We note the language used in section 3.3 of Report 148 suggests it is not essential for the GUC to be classified under specific tariff headings: see Solar Juice Pty Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs [2022] AATA 550.

  31. Section 3.3 provides “[t]he GUC may be classified to the following subheadings” in Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act, followed by a table which lists some of the subheadings under headings 7604, 7608 and 7610. It further provides:

    [i]n most cases where goods are correctly classified to tariff codes with the prefix 7604 or 7608, those goods would be the goods subject of this investigation and subject to any resulting securities or duties. [Emphasis added].

  32. Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not consider it to be necessary for the subject goods to fall within one of the relevant tariff classifications for them to be considered within the scope of the Notices.

    Classification of Subject Goods

  33. The first task in tariff classification is to objectively identify the goods in their condition as imported as they would appear to an informed observer. Identification is a “practical wharf-side task”, made objectively by reference to the characteristics the goods present, and not by reference to the intentions of the importer or the overseas supplier: see Chinese Food and Wine Supplies v Collector of Customs (1987) 72 ALR 591 at 599; Time Consultants v Collector of Customs (1987) 76 ALR 313 at 327.

  34. In the identification of goods, knowledge of how those who trade in the goods describe them is usually relevant but may not be conclusive. All the descriptive terms by which the goods may fairly be identified might be relevant to the classification of the goods: see Re Tridon and Collector of Customs (1982) 4 ALD 615 at 620.

  35. While identification is a practical wharf-side task, informed inspection may require the classifier to obtain information to enable identification of the goods. This is important when a heading classification makes specific reference to a form or to a purpose; see Times Consultants Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (Qld) (1987) 16 FCR 449 at 463 and Vernon-Carus Australia Pty Ltd and Thomas Creevey and Associates v Collector of Customs [1995] FCA 1283 at [20]; (1995) 21 AAR 450.

  36. Goods are then to be classified in accordance with classifications set out in Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act. Subsection 7(1) of the Tariff Act requires that the Interpretative Rules must be used for working out the tariff classification under which goods are classified.

  37. The Interpretative Rules are set out in Schedule 2 to the Tariff Act. They prescribe rules for determining the correct heading for classification. The proper procedure is to identify the correct heading, and then to identify the applicable subheading.

  38. Schedule 2 relevantly provides:

    1. The titles of Sections, Chapters and sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions:

    2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this Rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.

    …

    6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related Subheading Notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above Rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this Rule the relative Section and Chapter Notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.

  1. The following headings in Schedule 3 to the Tariff Act are in contention:

    ·7604 ALUMINIUM BARS, RODS AND PROFILES

    ·7616 OTHER ARTICLES OF ALUMINIUM

    ·8538 PARTS SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH THE      APPARATUS OF 8535, 8536 OR 8537

    Consideration

  2. The subject goods are plainly aluminium extrusions within the description of GUC contained in Report 148. Specifically:

    ·the subject goods were exported from China to Australia and were produced via an extrusion process;

    ·they are made of one of the aluminium alloy designations mentioned in the description;

    ·the goods were either “mill” finished or extruded or were “anodised…or otherwise coated”;

    ·the goods had a wall thickness or diameter greater than 0.5mm;

    ·they had a maximum weight per metre of 27 kg; and

    ·the goods had a profile which fits within a circle having a diameter of 421mm.

  3. The exception to the GUC does not apply. As imported, the subject goods have not been “processed or fabricated to such an extent that they no longer possess the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminium extrusion”. The subject goods have not been further processed or fabricated at all after being produced as extrusions, other than by having a surface coating applied. This does not take the subject goods outside the GUC, which specifically refers to “aluminium extrusion products that have been painted, anodised, or otherwise coated”. Despite the subject goods having a complex and purposeful design, they have not become a different product.

  4. Turning to the appropriate tariff classifications for the subject goods, it is plain from the images provided of the Athena Desk Mount extrusion that it is of a specifically designed shape. As already stated, it is designed to form the housing for power boards, including power switches and/or USB charging modules. The evidence of Mr Roberts establishes the 5.7m Athena Desk Mount extrusions are further manufactured after importation into parts used in assembling the Athena products by cutting the extrusion into lengths which vary from 137mm to 450mm, such that each imported 5.7m extrusion may be used to make a variable number of about 12 to 41 parts. The extrusions are then punched out for power cables and in some cases, copy routing a channel for a data cable.

  5. CMS contends the Athena Desk Mount is a part of a final assembled product, being completed power boards, and an apparatus of heading 8537. As such, it should be properly classified to heading 8538. Heading 8537 provides:

    8537 BOARDS, PANELS, CONSOLES, DESKS, CABINETS AND OTHER BASES, EQUIPPED WITH TWO OR MORE APPARATUS OF 8535 OR 8536, FOR ELECTRIC CONTROL OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY, INCLUDING THOSE INCORPORATING INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS OF CHAPTER 90, AND NUMERICAL CONTROL APPARATUS, OTHER THAN SWITCHING APPARATUS OF 8517

  6. It is submitted by CMS that the further work done to the extrusions after importation (ie, when the extrusion is cut to size after importation and punched out in the way that Mr Roberts explained in his evidence) does not mean that they should not be classified as parts. It does not change the essential character, which is, as a part suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of 8537. CMS relies on the decision of Solu Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs [2019] AATA 2584 at [49] in which the Tribunal said that an article may be a “part” of another product if, once cut to size, there is a “fixed numerical relationship” between the unfinished article and the finished article.

  7. It is accepted the power and data sockets installed in the finished Athena power boards are apparatus of 8536. It is also accepted the Athena Desk Mount extrusions are specifically designed - and will only be used - for manufacturing parts for the Athena power boards. However, as imported, the Athena Desk Mount extrusions are not “parts” as specified in heading 8538 for the following reasons.

  8. In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd (1971) 46 ALJR 32 at 34-35, Gibbs J considered the meaning of “parts” and stated:

    …Obviously a part is something which with others makes up a whole …One thing does not become a part of another simply because the latter thing cannot be put to proper use without the aid of the former, even if, in use, the two things are fixed together. In my opinion a film is not part of a camera, nor a bullet of a gun … The fact that the film pack and the picture roll are each designed to fit only one type of camera, which cannot be worked with any other type of photographic material, merely reinforces the view that the pack and the roll are essential aids to the use of the cameras, but does not show that the pack or the roll is a part of the camera itself. In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Fowler Rex (NSW) Pty Ltd (1967) 118 CLR 160 at 163, Owen J, held that the word “parts” … did no more than describe those things that in ordinary parlance would be described as spare parts for the various classes of goods mentioned. I take the same view of “parts” in item 38. [Emphasis added]

  9. Most of the finished Athena power boards do not contain the Athena Desk Mount extrusions as imported, namely in 5.7m lengths. After importation, the Athena Desk Mount extrusions undergo extensive working and are used to make a variable number of parts. Despite the specific design on the extrusions and intended use, the extrusions as imported cannot reasonably be identified as the parts they will be manufactured into after importation. Additionally, Interpretative Rule 2(a) does not assist CMS in this regard as it only applies if a single unfinished or incomplete imported article has, as imported, the essential character of a single complete or finished article covered by a heading. The Athena Desk Mount extrusions, as imported, do not have the essential character of any part.

  10. CMS contends that heading 8538 applies to the Power Pole extrusions on the basis that they are “parts” with the sole or principal purpose to house power points, being apparatus of 8536. Alternatively, the Power Poles are “parts” of the apparatus of 8537.

  11. The two aluminium extrusions which make up the Power Poles are specifically designed to carry electrical and/or data cables and to mount power points, being apparatus of 8536. It is apparent from the evidence that the main purpose of the Power Pole, which includes two aluminium extrusions imported together, is to house electrical and/or data cables and provide provision for the mounting of power points. The evidence of Mr Roberts is that the Power Pole extrusions are sold in a kit and shipped with provision for three power points. However, the ultimate number of power points installed in a finished Power Pole is up to the end user and may be less than two. While there is provision for power points, the majority of the Power Pole length (2.8m) is a conduit for electrical and/or data cables. These cables are not apparatus of 8536. As such, while the Power Pole extrusions are suitable for use with power points, they are not parts of power points nor parts “suitable for use solely or principally with” apparatus 8537.

  12. Each of the subject goods are “profiles” as they are extruded products which have a uniform cross-section along their whole length; see definition in Note 1(b) to Chapter 76. Despite the subject goods being designed specifically for an intended purpose, they do not have any specific features, nor have they been subjected to any specific manufacturing processes which would make them “more than merely aluminium extrusions”.

  13. We accept the Totem Pole and Power Pole extrusions may be recognisable on an informed inspection as fitting together, not permanently, to form a pole, however the Totem Pole and Power Pole extrusions are not imported as finished products ready for actual use. After importation, they are put into kits to be assembled by the customer. The Totem Pole and Power Pole extrusions form only part of the items in the kits for retail sale. It follows the Totem and Power Poles cannot be classified by reference to Interpretive Rule 3(a). The essential character of the Totem and Power Poles is clearly provided by their principle component, which are aluminium extrusions (Interpretive Rule 3(b)). As imported, the Totem Pole and Power Poles extrusions are not components of a complete good nor do they have features that make them more than an aluminium profile.

  14. Heading 7616 is not the preferred classification for the subject goods as 7604, a preceding heading in Chapter 76, describes the subject goods, as imported, most accurately by the relevant terms of “aluminium profiles”.

    Decision

  15. The subject goods are within the description of the GUC in Report 148 and are also classified under heading 7604. As such, the subject goods are within the scope of the Notices.

  16. The decisions under review are affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B McCabe & Senior Member A Poljak

.................................[SGD].......................................

Associate

Dated: 10 August 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 30 July 2021 and 26 October 2021
Date final submissions received: 31 March 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Z Maud
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr A Hudson, Rigby Cooke Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr R Northcote, Department of Home Affairs
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0