! ;
JUDGMENT No. . . ~ ~ ~ I I . I l .I?&C r
IN TIIE F E D E m COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 1 3 9 of 1992 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION 1
On appeal from the General Administrative Division 0 - of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted
by Senior Member D.W. Muller, . J.D. Horrigan i
(Member) and Captain E.T. Keane (Member) ! BETWEEN: PRESSURE TANKERS PTY. LTD. Applicant
AND: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDERS
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 30 November, WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1 ;
1. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal i given on 19 August, 1992 be set aside. 1 1 - 2 . The matter be remitted to the respondent for I reconsideration. ! NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 139 of 1992 OUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 GENERAL DIVISION )
On appeal from the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member D.W. Muller, Mr. J.D. Horrigan (Member) and Captain E.T. Keane (Member)
BETWEEN: PRESSURE TANKERS PTY. LTD.
Applicant
AND: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Respondent
Corm: Drummond J Date: 30 November, 1992
W: ~risbane
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This appeal raises the same question as that in Pozzolanic Enterprises Ptv. Ltd. v Collector of Customs, QG 138 of 1992. The appeal against the Tribunal's decision that "for the reasons given in Pozzolanic Enterprises Ptv. Ltd., Q91/463, the decision under review is affirmed" must be
matter has been allowed. allowed for the same reasons that the appeal in the Pozzolanic I certify that this page is a true
copy of the reasons for judgment
herein of the Honourable Mr.
Justice Drummond.Associate:
Date: 3; November, 1992
- AGLC
- Pressure Tankers P/L v Collector of Customs [1992] FCA 899
- Case
- [1992] FCA 899
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the AAT's decision was correct in affirming the Collector's decision. The applicant argued that the AAT had erred in its decision-making process and that the Collector's decision was not supported by the evidence. The court had to determine if the AAT had exercised its discretion properly and whether the decision was reasonable.
The court found that the AAT's decision was flawed for the same reasons as in the Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty. Ltd. v Collector of Customs case. The court determined that the AAT had not exercised its discretion properly and that the Collector's decision was not supported by the evidence. The court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration.
The court's final order was to set aside the AAT's decision and to remit the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration. The court did not make any additional orders in this case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.