GTK Trading Pty Ltd v Export Development Grants Board - [1981] FCA 226

Re: G.T.K. TRADING PROPRIETARY LIMITED
And: EXPORT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD (1981) 56 FLR 292
No. WAG15 of 1981
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Evatt(1), Deane(1) and Ellicott(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Export expansion grant - goods qualifying for payment of grant - live lobsters caught at sea - whether eligible goods - whether livestock - whether produced or processed - whether produced or processed in Australia - whether substantially of Australian origin

Words and Phrases - "Australia" - "Goods" - "Livestock" - "Produced" - "Processed".

Export Expansion Grants Act 1978 ss.3(1) 4(1)

Acts Interpretation Act (1901) ss.15AA, 15B(1)

Administrative Law - Export expansion grant - Goods qualifying for payment of grant - Live lobsters caught at sea - Whether eligible goods - Whether livestock - Whether produced or processed - Whether produced or processed in Australia - Whether substantially of Australian origin - "Australia" - "Goods" - "Livestock" - "Produced" - "Processed" - Meaning of - Export Expansion Grants Act 1978 (Cth), ss. 3 (1), 4 (1) - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss. 15AA, 15B (1).

HEADNOTE

The applicant claimed grants under the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978 in respect of the value of live lobsters which it exported to Japan, but the Export Development Grants Board disallowed the applications. The applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review the decision, and the Tribunal referred a number of questions of law to the Federal Court pursuant to s. 45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

The entitlement to a grant depended upon whether the live lobsters came within the definition of "eligible goods" which, by s. 4 (1) included goods:

". . . manufactured, produced, assembled or processed in Australia, where -
(a) not more than 50 per centum of the value of the goods is attributable to materials or parts not of Australian origin; or
(b) more than 50 per centum of the value of the goods is so attributable, but the Board is satisfied that the goods should be treated as substantially of Australian origin."

Section 3 excludes a number of items, including "live-stock" from the class of eligible goods.

Held: (1) Lobsters came within the definition of "goods" in s. 4 of the Export Expansion Grants Act.

(2) The word "live-stock" in s. 3 extends no further than animals kept for the purposes of use or profit, and does not include live lobsters caught at sea.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) v. Zest Manufacturing Co. Pty. Ltd. (1949), 79 CLR 166; Re Integrated Marketing and Export Development Grants Board (1980), 2 ALD 878, referred to.

(3) It was not open to the Tribunal to find that the lobsters were "manufactured" or "assembled" within the meaning of s. 4; but it was open to it to find that they were "produced", which covered the act of catching and caring for the lobsters until they started their journey to Japan; and to find…

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 GTK Trading Pty Ltd v Export Development Grants Board 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: [1981] FCA 226
Decision Date: 10 DECEMBER 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GTK Trading Pty Ltd sought a review of a decision made by the Export Development Grants Board, which refused their application for an export expansion grant. The dispute centred on whether the live lobsters that were the subject of the grant application were eligible goods for the purposes of receiving the grant. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with answering this question of law referred to it by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under section 45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the live lobsters caught at sea were eligible goods for the purpose of the grant. Secondly, whether these lobsters qualified as livestock, and whether they were produced or processed in Australia. Additionally, the court had to consider whether these lobsters were substantially of Australian origin, and whether the production or processing of the lobsters fell within the definition of manufacture or assembly.

In its decision, the court answered the referred questions of law in a manner that provided clarity on the eligibility of live lobsters for the export expansion grant. The court found that live lobsters caught at sea were indeed eligible goods. They also concluded that lobsters could be considered livestock, and that both production and processing of these lobsters qualified for the grant, excluding manufacture or assembly. The court found that the question of whether the lobsters were substantially of Australian origin did not arise because they were caught at sea. Lastly, the court determined that the lobsters were not produced or processed in Australia, nor were they substantially of Australian origin.

The court's final orders were to answer the questions of law referred to it by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The court ruled that live lobsters caught at sea were eligible goods for the grant, and that production and processing of lobsters qualified for the grant, excluding manufacture or assembly. The question of whether the lobsters were substantially of Australian origin did not arise, and the court found that they were neither produced or processed in Australia, nor substantially of Australian origin.

Orders

Orders of the court

The question of law referred to it pursuant to s.45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act be answered as follows: -

(1) Yes

(2) Yes in relation to production and (3) processing but not manufacture or assembly

(4)(a) Does not arise

(b) No

(5) No

(6) Yes

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.