Nott Bros and Co Ltd v Barkley

This case concerned an action brought by Nott Bros. & Co. Ltd. against the Collector of Customs for New South Wales to recover duties paid under protest. The duties were levied under section 8(2) of the *Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1922* on artificial flowers imported from France. The plaintiff contended that the Act and the Minister's subsequent notice specifying the goods were invalid. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund based on these contentions.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the *Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1922* infringed various provisions of the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Act contravened section 55 of the Constitution, which governs the content of laws imposing taxation, and section 90, which grants the Commonwealth Parliament exclusive power to impose duties of customs and excise. Further questions arose regarding the validity of delegating power to the Minister to specify goods subject to the special duty and whether the Minister's notice was lawful and sufficiently specific.

The Court reasoned that the *Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1922* did not violate section 55 of the Constitution. It found that the Act dealt only with the imposition of taxation and that section 8, in particular, concerned duties of customs only. The Court also held that the imposition of the special duty under section 8 did not infringe the exclusive power of the Commonwealth Parliament under section 90. This was because the power to impose the duty was exercised by Parliament, with the Minister's action serving as a condition precedent to the operation of the law, a principle supported by *Powell v. Apollo Candle Co.*. The Court further determined that section 8, read in conjunction with section 13 of the Act, granted the Minister the power to specify goods in a general manner, and the notice issued was therefore valid.

The question of law was answered in the negative. Consequently, judgment was entered for the defendant, the Collector of Customs, with costs.