Chief Executive Officer of Customs v AMI Toyota Ltd [2000] FCA 1343

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v AMI Toyota Ltd [2000] FCA 1343

The average warranty cost, although not severable from the total invoiced vehicle price, was a payment in relation to the goods. However, it was also a cost in relation to activities undertaken by Toyota Australia on its own account in giving and honouring warranties to consumers in relation to the vehicles, and therefore fell within para (b) of the definition of "value unrelated matter" in s 154(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The AAT erred in law by failing to address that central issue, so the appeal from the primary judge was dismissed, subject to variation of the remittal order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Customs Valuation Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge's Decision Allowing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal otherwise dismissed with costs; primary judge's order varied as to the form of remittal.
Legal Topics
['customs Value of Imported Goods' 'transaction Value' 'adjusted Price' 'value Unrelated Matter' 'warranty Costs' 'appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal']
['customs Law' 'administrative Law'] ['customs Value of Imported Goods' 'transaction Value' 'adjusted Price' 'value Unrelated Matter' 'warranty Costs' 'appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Customs Valuation Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge's Decision Allowing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the average warranty cost component of the purchase price was a payment made in relation to the imported vehicles for the purposes of the definition of "price" in s 154(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth).' "Whether the average warranty cost was a value unrelated matter under s 154(1) as a cost, charge or expense in relation to activities undertaken by the purchaser on the purchaser's own account relating to warranties in relation to the goods." "Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's failure to address a central question raised by the material involved a question of law."]

Ratio Decidendi

The average warranty cost, although not severable from the total invoiced vehicle price, was a payment in relation to the goods. However, it was also a cost in relation to activities undertaken by Toyota Australia on its own account in giving and honouring warranties to consumers in relation to the vehicles, and therefore fell within para (b) of the definition of "value unrelated matter" in s 154(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The AAT erred in law by failing to address that central issue, so the appeal from the primary judge was dismissed, subject to variation of the remittal order.

Court Disposition

Appeal otherwise dismissed with costs; primary judge's order varied as to the form of remittal.

Orders

  • ['Save that the order of Heerey J that: "The case be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with directions that the decisions of the respondent under review be set aside and that the customs value of the vehicles in question be recalculated by the respondent on the basis that the average warranty cost in...