Radio Corporation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth - [1938] HCA 9

RADIO CORPORATION PROPRIETARY

THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS Customs-Regulations-Validity-Prohibited imports-Prohibition of importation

without consent of Minister-Prohibition by reference to country of origin of goods-Customs Act 1901-1935 (No. 6 of 1901-No. 7 of 1935), secs. 52 (g), 56

-Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (S.R. No. 152 of 1934 No. 69 1937, Nov. 4, 5.

Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Delegation of legislative power-Act authorizing regula- 1938,

tions to prohibit importation of goods.

The Customs Act 1901-1935 provided, by sec. 52: "The following are prohibited imports

(g) All goods the importation of which may be prohibited by regulation," and, by sec. 56 "The power of prohibiting importation of goods shall authorize prohibition subject to any specified condition or restriction and goods imported contrary to any such condition or restriction shall be prohibited imports."

Regulations made under the Customs Act prohibited the importation of specified goods unless the consent of the Minister was first obtained. The regulations also prohibited the importation of certain goods by reference to their country of origin.

59 CLR 171

(2) By Latham C.J., Rich, Starke and McTiernan JJ. (Dixon and Evatt JJ. dissenting), that the regulations were valid, and that the requirement of the consent of the Minister to the importation of goods was a "condition or restriction," within the meaning of sec. 56, which could validly be imposed.

(3) By Latham C.J., Rich, Starke and McTiernanJJ., that it was not sufficient to invalidate the regulations that (i.) the prohibited goods were specified by reference to their country of origin and not by reference to their physical character as ascertainable by inspection; (ii.) the Minister was authorized, in determining whether he could consent to the importation of particular goods, to consider the quantity of goods proposed to be imported irrespective of their quality, thus introducing a quota system by administrative action (iii.) the purpose for which goods were to be used was adopted as a criterion for determining their prohibited character (iv.) the importation was pro- hibited of goods which were included in the Customs Tariffs as being subject to duty. DEMURRER.

This was a demurrer to a statement of claim in an action by Radio Corporation Pty. Ltd. against the Commonwealth of Australia, Thomas Walter White, the Minister of State for Trade and Customs, and the Comptroller-General of Customs.

The relevant portion of the statement of claim was in substance as follows :-

3. The plaintiff has for many years been importing goods into Australia manufactured in other countries, including the United States of America, such as parts of and accessories for wireless receivers, valves for wireless telephony, including rectifying valves, carbon manufactures of certain kinds, electric insulating paper and boards, steel sheets (plain) exclusively for the purpose of manu- facturing wireless receiving sets.

4. By statutory rule No. 152 of 1934 made on 6th December 1934 the Governor-General in Council purported to make certain regula- tions under the Customs Act 1901-1934, termed Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, under reg. 2 whereof it was provided that they should come…

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 Radio Corporation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth 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: [1938] HCA 9
Decision Date: 7 March 1938

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Radio Corporation Pty Ltd brought an action against the Commonwealth of Australia and two government officials, challenging the validity of certain regulations made under the Customs Act 1901-1935. The dispute concerned the prohibition of importing specific goods, particularly those manufactured in certain countries or requiring the Minister's consent for importation. The case was heard on a demurrer to the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court was required to determine whether the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, which prohibited the importation of specified goods unless the Minister's consent was obtained or by reference to their country of origin, were valid. Specifically, the court had to consider if these regulations were authorised by sections 52(g) and 56 of the Customs Act, and whether the conditions imposed, such as requiring ministerial consent or specifying goods by country of origin, were legally permissible. The plaintiff argued that the regulations were too vague, constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power, and were not sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Rich, Starke, and McTiernan JJ., held that the regulations were valid. They reasoned that section 56 of the Customs Act expressly authorised prohibition subject to specified conditions or restrictions, and that the requirement of the Minister's consent constituted such a condition. The court found that the prohibition of goods by reference to their country of origin, the use of quantity as a criterion for consent (a quota system), and the consideration of the purpose for which goods were to be used were all permissible under the Act, particularly given its purpose of controlling trade and commerce. The court rejected arguments that the regulations were invalid due to vagueness or an unconstitutional delegation of power, citing previous authorities that upheld similar delegations and the broad scope of Parliament's power over trade and commerce.

The demurrer was allowed, and judgment was entered for the defendants. The court found that the regulations were validly made under the Customs Act and that the Minister's actions, as described in the statement of claim, were authorised by those regulations. Consequently, the plaintiff had no cause of action.

Orders