Threlfall v Matthew Goode and Company Limited

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the valuation of imported goods for customs duty purposes. The appellant was the Collector of Customs, and the respondent was Matthew Goode & Company Limited, an importer. The dispute arose over the amount of customs duty paid under protest on linoleum imported from England. The importer contended that the duty should be calculated based on the fair market value of the goods at the time of purchase, whereas the Collector argued it should be based on the fair market value at the time of export.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of sections 154 and 155 of the *Customs Act 1901-1910*. Specifically, the court had to determine at what point in time the "fair market value" of goods, as defined by section 154(a), should be assessed for the purpose of calculating ad valorem customs duties when those goods had been purchased abroad by the importer.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that section 154(a) of the *Customs Act* mandates that the value for duty purposes is to be taken as the fair market value of the goods in the principal markets of the country of export, free on board at the port of export, plus a ten per cent. addition. While section 154(a) does not explicitly state the date for this valuation, the court found that the overall scheme of the Act, particularly when read in conjunction with section 155, indicated that the relevant time for assessing this market value was the date of export. The court rejected the argument that the date of purchase should be determinative, noting that this could lead to inequalities in taxation and that the invoice, while a verification tool, was not the sole determinant of value or the relevant time for its assessment. The court concluded that the fair market value should be assessed as at the time of export, not the time of purchase.