NEW SOUTH WALES. Customs Dulies-Offence-Entry of imported goods-When duty to enter arises-
"Imported," meaning of-Goods brought in ship into port-Goods not landed but taken away in ship-Evasion of payment of duty-"Evade," meaning of Failure to pay-Interfering with goods subject to control of Customs-" Interfere," meaning of-Physical dealing with goods-Intention to defraud revenue-Customs Act 1901-1920 (No. 6 of 1901-No. 41 of 1920), secs. 33, 68, 234, 236, 241.
A quantity of paint was shipped in England and consigned to a consignee in MELBOURNE, Sydney. The paint would have been dutiable under the Customs Tariff if June 8, 1926. imported into the Commonwealth. The ship did not go to Sydney but entered another port in New South Wales. The ship was about to discharge the Isaacs, Higgins, paint there, and the consignee was willing to take delivery. While the ship was in the port an arrangement was made between C., acting on behalf of
the consignee, and the captain of the ship, whereby the paint was taken over for the use of the ship. No Customs entry was made in respect of the paint and it was not landed. By permission of the Customs officer at the port, a guarantee having been given by the captain to furnish a list of all dutiable stores consumed on the voyage to Melbourne, the next port of call, the ship left the port with the paint on board. No duty was paid in respect of any of the paint.
Held, (1) that the paint was imported, that the consignee had failed to enter imported goods as required by sec. 68 of the Customs Act 1901-1920, and that C. had been directly concerned in that offence within the meaning of sec. 236; (2) that the consignee had not, by reason of the arrangement made for the paint being taken over for the use of the ship, interfered with goods subject to the control of the Customs within the meaning of sec. 33; and (3) that the consignee had not evaded payment of duty which was payable within the meaning of sec. 234.
APPEALS from a Court of Petty Sessions of New South Wales.
At the Court of Petty Sessions at Sydney before a Stipendiary Magistrate nine informations were heard whereby Richard William Wilson, an officer of Customs, charged Chambers &Co. Pty. Ltd., Lawrence Chambers and William Chambers severally with offences against the Customs Act 1901-1920. The charges against the Company were that (1) it interfered with goods which were subject to the control of the Customs (sec. 33); (2) it failed to enter imported goods (sec. 68), and (3) it evaded payment of duty which was payable (sec. 234). The charges against each of the individual defendants were that he was directly concerned in the commission of each of the three offences alleged against the Company (sec. 236). All the offences charged-those…
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 Wilson v Chambers & Co Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wilson v Chambers & Co Pty Ltd [1926] HCA 15
Case
[1926] HCA 15
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Wilson v Chambers & Co Pty Ltd* involved appeals to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a New South Wales Court of Petty Sessions. The informant, an officer of Customs, had laid several informations against Chambers & Co Pty Ltd and two of its directors, Lawrence and William Chambers, alleging offences against the *Customs Act 1901-1920*. These offences included interfering with goods under Customs control, failing to enter imported goods, and evading payment of duty, with an overarching allegation of intent to defraud the revenue. The Magistrate had dismissed all informations, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient.
The High Court was required to determine whether the goods in question were "imported" for the purposes of the Act, whether the actions of the respondents constituted a failure to enter imported goods as required by section 68, whether they had "interfered" with goods subject to Customs control under section 33, and whether they had "evaded" payment of duty under section 234. The Court also considered whether the directors were directly concerned in any offences committed by the company under section 236.
The Court held that the paint in question was indeed "imported" when the ship arrived at Port Kembla, as it was brought into the port for the purpose of being discharged. Consequently, an obligation arose under section 68 to enter the goods. The arrangement made with the ship's captain to retain the paint on board for the ship's use was not considered an "interference" with goods under Customs control within the meaning of section 33, as it did not involve a physical dealing with the goods. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondents had not "evaded" payment of duty under section 234. This was because the term "evade" implied more than a mere failure to pay; it required a wilful avoidance, and the evidence did not demonstrate an intent to defraud the revenue or a lack of honest and reasonable grounds for the actions taken.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal in part. It found that the Magistrate's dismissal of the charge of failing to enter imported goods (section 68) was erroneous, and that the company and Lawrence Chambers were guilty of this offence. However, the Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to dismiss the charges relating to interference with goods (section 33) and evasion of duty (section 234). The appeals against William Chambers were dismissed as not being pressed.