Sidebottom v Giuliano [2000] FCA 607

Sidebottom v Giuliano [2000] FCA 607

Although s 60(1)(b) cannot be invoked where it is an undoubted fact that the custodian failed to keep excisable goods safely, that was not the position here. The respondents' concession only showed that Mr Giuliano had information from which he could form an opinion that goods were not safely kept, and the applicants denied possession of excisable blended petroleum products and their removal into home consumption without payment of duty. Because an accounting was not shown to be futile and the revenue may require protection, the requests to account were not invalid and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for a Declaration Challenging Requests to Account for Excisable Goods Under S 60 of the Excise Act 1901 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; interlocutory injunction discharged.
Legal Topics
['excisable Goods Subject to Control of Customs' 'request to Account for Excisable Goods' 'protection of the Revenue' 'home Consumption Without Payment of Excise Duty' 'blended Petroleum Products']
['customs and Excise' 'revenue Law'] ['excisable Goods Subject to Control of Customs' 'request to Account for Excisable Goods' 'protection of the Revenue' 'home Consumption Without Payment of Excise Duty' 'blended Petroleum Products']

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 a Declaration Challenging Requests to Account for Excisable Goods Under S 60 of the Excise Act 1901 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a Collector of Customs can request an accounting under s 60(1)(b) of the Excise Act 1901 (Cth) where protection of the revenue will not be advanced by such a request.' 'Whether it was an undoubted fact that the applicants had failed to keep excisable goods safely so that reliance on s 60(1)(b) was unavailable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although s 60(1)(b) cannot be invoked where it is an undoubted fact that the custodian failed to keep excisable goods safely, that was not the position here. The respondents' concession only showed that Mr Giuliano had information from which he could form an opinion that goods were not safely kept, and the applicants denied possession of excisable blended petroleum products and their removal into home consumption without payment of duty. Because an accounting was not shown to be futile and the revenue may require protection, the requests to account were not invalid and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; interlocutory injunction discharged.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The interlocutory injunction granted on 24 September 1999 be discharged.' "The applicant pay the respondents' taxed costs of the application."]