Drew v Dibb [2008] FCA 1057

Drew v Dibb [2008] FCA 1057

The respondents were liable under s 35A of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The cigarettes were dutiable goods on importation, and s 35A applied according to its broad language to warehouse licensees. The alleged lack of market value did not prevent the cigarettes from being dutiable, particularly because cigarette duty was imposed at a fixed rate per cigarette rather than ad valorem. The s 35A conditions were alternative, not cumulative, and the Collector was not bound to be satisfied by the respondents' accounting because the evidence left open some risk of loss to the revenue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Customs Duty Debt Recovery Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; respondents ordered to pay the amount claimed and costs.
Legal Topics
['customs Duties on Imported Goods' 'warehouse Licensee Liability' 'dutiable Goods Subject to Customs Control' 'accounting for Stolen Goods' 'refund, Rebate or Remission of Duty']
['customs Law' 'administrative Law'] ['customs Duties on Imported Goods' 'warehouse Licensee Liability' 'dutiable Goods Subject to Customs Control' 'accounting for Stolen Goods' 'refund, Rebate or Remission of Duty']

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 Duty Debt Recovery Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents were required to pay $127,364.30 demanded by a Collector as customs duty payable on stolen warehoused cigarettes.' 'Whether s 35A of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applies to warehouse licensees notwithstanding the former s 92 regime.' 'Whether cigarettes that were stale, improperly packaged and without an established Australian market were not dutiable because they allegedly had no value.' 'Whether the applicant had to establish both failure to keep the goods safely and failure to account for the goods to the satisfaction of a Collector.' "Whether the Collector was bound to be satisfied by the respondents' accounting that the stolen cigarettes posed no threat to the revenue."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were liable under s 35A of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The cigarettes were dutiable goods on importation, and s 35A applied according to its broad language to warehouse licensees. The alleged lack of market value did not prevent the cigarettes from being dutiable, particularly because cigarette duty was imposed at a fixed rate per cigarette rather than ad valorem. The s 35A conditions were alternative, not cumulative, and the Collector was not bound to be satisfied by the respondents' accounting because the evidence left open some risk of loss to the revenue.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; respondents ordered to pay the amount claimed and costs.

Orders

  • ['The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $127,364.30.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be taxed in default of agreement."]