Zappia v Comptroller General of Customs

Domenic Zappia appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had affirmed statutory demands made against him by the Comptroller General of Customs for duty on stolen cigarettes. The appeal was brought on a question of law only, and concerned the meaning of the word “control” as it appears in the phrase “possession, custody or control” in the context of s 35A of the Customs Act. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that he had been in control of the goods within the meaning of s 35A. The respondent argued that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that the appellant had “control” of the goods. The court found that the appellant could not be found to have been in control of the goods within the meaning of s 35A. The court considered the meaning of the word “control” in the context of the composite phrase “the possession, custody or control” in s 35A of the Customs Act. The court found that “control” was not intended to bear the same connotation as “possession” or “custody” and that the section was intended to have application to persons wider than persons having (or entrusted with) “possession” or “custody”. The court found that the appellant was not in control of the cigarettes within the meaning of s 35A. The appeal was allowed, the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the statutory demand was found to be invalid and of no effect. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.