Wilson v Chambers and Company Pty Ltd [1926] HCA 15

Wilson v Chambers and Company Pty Ltd [1926] HCA 15

The goods in question were imported within the meaning of sec. 68 when brought to Port Kembla for discharge; the Company and Lawrence Chambers failed to enter the goods as required, and should have been convicted under sec. 68. There was no evidence of evasion of duty under sec. 234, nor of interference under sec. 33; 'evade' implies more than omission and 'interference' requires a physical act.

Parties
Appellant, Informant: Richard William Wilson; Respondent, Defendant: Chambers & Co. Pty. Ltd.; Respondent, Defendant: Lawrence Chambers; Respondent, Defendant: William Chambers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal (case Stated) / High Court of Australia Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeals dismissed in part, allowed in part, case remitted as ordered
Legal Topics
Imported Goods, Customs Offence, Interpretation of 'imported' and 'evade', Entry of Imported Goods, Physical Interference With Customs Goods
Customs Law Criminal Law Imported Goods Customs Offence Interpretation of 'imported' and 'evade' Entry of Imported Goods Physical Interference With Customs Goods

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard William Wilson

Appellant, Informant

Chambers & Co. Pty. Ltd.

Respondent, Defendant

Lawrence Chambers

Respondent, Defendant

William Chambers

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (case Stated) / High Court of Australia Appeal From a Court of Petty Sessions of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the goods were 'imported' under the Customs Act 1901-1920 when brought to Port Kembla
  2. 2 Whether the consignee failed to enter imported goods as required by sec. 68
  3. 3 Meaning of 'evade' in sec. 234 and whether duty was evaded

Ratio Decidendi

The goods in question were imported within the meaning of sec. 68 when brought to Port Kembla for discharge; the Company and Lawrence Chambers failed to enter the goods as required, and should have been convicted under sec. 68. There was no evidence of evasion of duty under sec. 234, nor of interference under sec. 33; 'evade' implies more than omission and 'interference' requires a physical act.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed in part, allowed in part, case remitted as ordered

Orders

  • As to William Chambers: appeals dismissed; appellant to pay costs.
  • As to Lawrence Chambers: appeals on secs. 33 and 234 dismissed; Magistrate's determination on sec. 68 erroneous; Lawrence Chambers should have been convicted under sec. 68; case remitted.