R v Comptroller-General of Customs

This case concerned a dispute between Woolworths Limited and the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Collector of Customs for New South Wales regarding the assessment of customs duties on imported goods. Woolworths Limited sought a writ of mandamus to compel the customs officials to pass entries for goods without including a "buying commission" in their dutiable value, or alternatively, to allow payment of any additional duty under protest. The core of the dispute lay in the customs department's refusal to accept the importer's valuation and their insistence on a cash security deposit pending further proof of the commission's genuineness, rather than definitively assessing and demanding the duty.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Collector of Customs was entitled to refuse to assess and pass an entry for imported goods, and to demand a cash security deposit under section 42 of the *Customs Act 1901-1930* pending proof of valuation under section 216, instead of levying duty or allowing payment under protest as provided by section 167. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Collector could retain goods and demand a deposit on terms that the deposit would become the property of the Commonwealth if the importer failed to satisfy the department of the correct valuation, without first making a definitive demand for duty.

The Court held that the Collector could not refuse to assess duty and pass an entry. It reasoned that the Collector could not simultaneously refrain from demanding duty and demand a deposit against a potential future duty, with the deposit subject to forfeiture without a formal assessment. Section 216 permits the Collector to retain goods pending the adduction of evidence or reasonable investigation, but not to indefinitely defer the levying of duty. Section 42 allows for security for the ultimate payment of duty found to be due, but not for a deposit to be forfeited if the importer fails to satisfy the department's satisfaction regarding valuation, as opposed to a court's determination. The Court found that the departmental practice, as evidenced by the security form, attempted to conflate the powers under sections 42 and 216 in a manner that unlawfully deprived the importer of their right to have duty assessed and to challenge that assessment through legal action under section 167.

The Court made absolute the rule nisi for mandamus. It ordered that the Collector of Customs for New South Wales be directed to pass and enter the goods in question so as to enable the applicants to pay any additional duty that might be payable in relation to the buying commission under protest, or to pass and enter the goods at a value that did not include the buying commission. Furthermore, the Collector was ordered to indicate what further proof was required under section 216 regarding the valuation of goods for which deposits had been made, and to specify the respects and reasons why the goods were alleged to be not properly valued.