Re Hayes v. Ex Parte J. Wattie Canneries Ltd [1986] FCA 528

Re Hayes v. Ex Parte J. Wattie Canneries Ltd [1986] FCA 528

The power under s.42(1B) Customs Act 1901 is provisional and allows Customs to require securities if, in its opinion, anti-dumping duty may be payable. At this stage, it is not required to make contemporaneous comparisons or fully determine all aspects of 'goods' or injury. Nor is Customs obliged to disclose all material or undertake all suggested inquiries. The procedures followed satisfied the requirements of fairness at the provisional stage, and there was no evidence of improper purpose or manifest unreasonableness. Therefore, the application should be dismissed.

Parties
Prosecutor: J. Wattie Canneries Limited; First Respondent: Thomas Plunkett Hayes, Comptroller-General of Customs; Second Respondent: Petersville Industries Limited; Third Respondent: McCain Foods (Australia) Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction / Final Judgment After Hearing of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Customs Law Anti Dumping Judicial Review Natural Justice Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Wattie Canneries Limited

Prosecutor

Thomas Plunkett Hayes, Comptroller-General of Customs

First Respondent

Petersville Industries Limited

Second Respondent

McCain Foods (Australia) Pty. Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction / Final Judgment After Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Customs' preliminary finding and imposition of securities under s.42(1B) Customs Act 1901 were lawful
  2. 2 Whether natural justice required further disclosure or inquiry at the provisional measures stage
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of power was for an improper purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The power under s.42(1B) Customs Act 1901 is provisional and allows Customs to require securities if, in its opinion, anti-dumping duty may be payable. At this stage, it is not required to make contemporaneous comparisons or fully determine all aspects of 'goods' or injury. Nor is Customs obliged to disclose all material or undertake all suggested inquiries. The procedures followed satisfied the requirements of fairness at the provisional stage, and there was no evidence of improper purpose or manifest unreasonableness. Therefore, the application should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Order Nisi discharged.