L Vogel & Son Pty Ltd v Anderson

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kitto J. Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ.

L. VOGEL &SON PTY. LTD. v. ANDERSON

(1968) 120 CLR 157

8 December 1967

Criminal Law—Customs

Criminal Law—Customs—Offences—Single transaction involving more than one step each of &hich was an offence—Convictions of more than one such offence—Evasion of duty involving steps each contravening a provision of the Act—Penalty—Customs Act 1901-1960 (Cth), ss. 234, 241.* Customs—Offences—Penalty—Maximum penalty not less than thrice the value of goods "in respect of" &hich offence committed—Whether offences "in respect of" goods—Customs Act 1901-1960 (Cth), ss. 234, 240.* Customs—Offences—Smuggling—Goods imported—Misdescription of goods in documents and entries—True character of goods concealed by misdescription—Lesser rate of duty attracted—Goods released by the customs to importers—Whether "smuggling"—Whether clandestine introduction of goods necessary to constitute "smuggling"—Customs Act 1901-1960 (Cth), ss. 4* ("Smuggling"), 233 (1) (a).*

Decisions

1967, December 8.
KITTO J. delivered the following judgment:-
L. Vogel and Son Pty. Limited and Henry Vogel its managing director are charged with offences against the Customs Act 1901 (as amended) (Cth) in respect of importations of piece goods into Australia from Western Germany in fourteen ships which reported at Sydney between 21st May 1962 and 19th December 1963. In each instance but one the defendants succeeded in getting the goods through the Customs by fraudulent means upon payment of less duty than was payable upon them; and in the remaining instance they attempted to do so. The goods imported in nine of the ships were misrepresented as being entirely of cotton whereas in fact they were a mixture of cotton and synthetic fibres. As regards the goods imported in the other five ships the price at which the defendant company had bought the goods was misstated. In each instance the course followed was carefully planned and deliberately pursued with intent to defraud the revenue, the amount of duty involved amounting in all to approximately $39,000. (at p159)

2. The methods adopted in all cases involved pre-concert with the German suppliers. In the cases of misdescription of goods an agreed code was employed in the orders sent by the defendants, so that what appeared to be orders for piece goods of cotton poplin were understood and confirmed by the suppliers as orders for piece goods of a cotton and polyester fibre mixture. In each of those instances the suppliers furnished the defendants with two invoices which described the goods as cotton poplin, and the defendants caused these invoices to be presented to the Customs as being respectively the relevant commercial invoice and the relevant "genuine" invoice required to be produced under s. 40B. They caused the goods to be entered for home consumption as cotton poplin and paid only the duty appropriate to that kind of material. (at p159)

3. In all but one of the instances in which prices were misstated the suppliers sent the defendants commercial invoices and "genuine" invoices stating the price as an amount in pence sterling per lineal yard. The defendants produced these invoices to the Customs…