The words duties of Customs" in sec. 7 of the Customs Tariff 1908 include moneys demanded by the Collector of Customs and paid in respect of imported goods under such circumstances that, if the tariff proposed in Parliament on 8th August 1907 or any proposed amendment thereof had, at the time of the demand and payment, been a lawfully imposed tariff, the moneys would have been properly collected as Customs duties.
So held by O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins JJ. (Griffith C.J. dissenting). Cowan &Sons v. Lockyer, 1 C.L.R., 460, distinguished. Where moneys were demanded under such circumstances as above set out and were paid without protest,
Held by Griffith C.J. and O'Connor and Higgins JJ., that, as there was no dispute within sec. 167 of the Customs Act 1901, the payment was not voluntary and, therefore, that an action would lie to recover the moneys paid, if the collection of the moneys was not subsequently ratified by Parliament.
Per Isaacs J. -There was no "dispute" within sec. 167, and, as the plaintiffs could by raising a "dispute" have obtained the goods without "payment" of the duty, the payment was voluntary. and therefore the action
The value of outside packages in which goods subject to duty according to their value are imported is not included in the value of those goods as defined by sec. 154 (a) of the Customs Act 1901.
So held by Griffith C.J. and Higgins J. (O'Connor and Isaacs JJ. dis- senting).
QUESTIONS of law reserved for the Full Court.
An action was brought in the High Court by Sargood Brothers against the Commonwealth and (in the alternative) Archibald William Smart, Collector of Customs for the State of Victoria, to recover the sum of £188 8s.
In the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1902, Division XVI. (x) the following special exemption appeared :-" Outside packages, n.e.i., in which goods are ordinarily imported when containing such goods."
In the Schedule to the Customs Tariff as proposed in Parlia- ment on 8th August 1907, Division XVI., Item 444 was as follows Outside packages, n.e.i., in which goods other than those subject to an ad valorem duty are ordinarily imported when containing goods-Free." On 12th December 1907 this Item 444 was amended by Parliament to read as follows :-" Outside
packages, n.e.i., including the sole containing package, in…
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.
Continue reading Sargood Bros v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sargood Bros v Commonwealth [1910] HCA 45
Case
[1910] HCA 45
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sargood Brothers brought an action in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth and the Collector of Customs for Victoria seeking to recover £188 8s. This sum represented duties paid on outside packages containing imported goods between 9 August 1907 and 12 December 1907. During this period, the Customs officers demanded duty on these packages, including their value in the assessment of the contained goods, based on a tariff proposed to Parliament. The plaintiffs paid these amounts without express protest, and the core of the dispute concerned whether these payments were recoverable.
The legal issues before the Full Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the words "duties of Customs" in section 7 of the Customs Tariff 1908 encompassed moneys demanded and paid under a proposed tariff that was subsequently enacted, even if the specific items paid upon were ultimately exempt. Secondly, the Court had to determine whether the value of outside packages containing goods dutiable ad valorem was included in the value of those goods for the purpose of calculating duty under section 154(a) of the Customs Act 1901.
A majority of the Court (O'Connor, Isaacs, and Higgins JJ.) held that the phrase "duties of Customs" in section 7 of the Customs Tariff 1908 was broad enough to include moneys demanded and paid under a proposed tariff, provided that if the proposed tariff had been law at the time of payment, the moneys would have been properly collected. They reasoned that section 7 was intended to provide an indemnity for actions taken in anticipation of parliamentary approval of a tariff. Regarding the value of outside packages, Griffith C.J. and Higgins J. held that their value was not included in the value of the goods for duty assessment purposes under section 154(a) of the Customs Act 1901, distinguishing between the goods themselves and their packaging.
The Court further considered whether the payments were voluntary, thereby precluding recovery. Griffith C.J., O'Connor, and Higgins JJ. found that there was no "dispute" within the meaning of section 167 of the Customs Act 1901, as the parties were aware that the goods were not legally liable to duty, and the only uncertainty was parliamentary ratification. Consequently, they held the payment was not voluntary and an action for recovery would lie if the collection was not subsequently ratified by Parliament. Isaacs J., however, dissented on this point, finding the payment voluntary as the plaintiffs could have avoided payment by raising a dispute. The Court ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sums paid for the value of the outside packages.