Goben Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive Officer of Customs & Anor [1996] FCA 641

Goben Pty Ltd v The Chief Executive Officer of Customs & Anor [1996] FCA 641

The Court held that the goods in question could be simultaneously subject to the control of Customs and in the possession, custody or control of Goben for the purposes of the Tobacco Act. The seizure by the Chief Commissioner was valid, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the goods were evidence of an offence. The Chief Commissioner qualified as an 'owner' for purposes of moving the goods under the Customs Act. Customs was not obliged to investigate the regularity of the seizure when granting permission to move. No breach of procedural fairness occurred in not giving Goben notice or a hearing before removal, due to the context and risk to the effectiveness of the seizure....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (with Claim for Damages and Conversion) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["meaning of 'subject to the Control of Customs'" 'authority to Move Goods Under Customs Act' 'judicial Review of Administrative Action' 'seizure of Goods as Evidence of Offence' "interpretation of 'possession, Custody or Control'" 'powers and Definition of Owner Under Customs Act' 'franchise Licensing for Tobacco']
['customs and Excise Law' 'administrative Law'] ["meaning of 'subject to the Control of Customs'" 'authority to Move Goods Under Customs Act' 'judicial Review of Administrative Action' 'seizure of Goods as Evidence of Offence' "interpretation of 'possession, Custody or Control'" 'powers and Definition of Owner Under Customs Act' 'franchise Licensing for Tobacco']

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

Application for Judicial Review (with Claim for Damages and Conversion) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether goods were 'subject to the control of Customs' within the Customs Act 1901 (Cth)" 'Whether the seizure by the Chief Commissioner under s. 58 of the Tobacco Act was valid' 'Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe goods were evidence of an offence under the Tobacco Act' "The meaning of 'possession, custody or control' as used in relevant statutes" "Whether the Chief Commissioner can be an 'owner' for purposes of s. 71E of the Customs Act" 'Whether Customs acted unlawfully in granting permission to move goods without investigating the lawfulness of the seizure' 'Whether natural justice required Custom to afford Goben the opportunity to be heard before moving the goods']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the goods in question could be simultaneously subject to the control of Customs and in the possession, custody or control of Goben for the purposes of the Tobacco Act. The seizure by the Chief Commissioner was valid, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the goods were evidence of an offence. The Chief Commissioner qualified as an 'owner' for purposes of moving the goods under the Customs Act. Customs was not obliged to investigate the regularity of the seizure when granting permission to move. No breach of procedural fairness occurred in not giving Goben notice or a hearing before removal, due to the context and risk to the effectiveness of the seizure....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']