Sternberg v The Queen [1953] HCA 15

Sternberg v The Queen [1953] HCA 15

The prescribed customs entry required objective correctness in the particulars stated, including value or value for duty. The knowledge-and-belief qualifications in the declaration did not qualify the entry itself. Accordingly, the applicant's argument that there could be no principal offence failed, and special leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia Special Leave Application
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['false Customs Entry' 'value or Value for Duty' 'being Concerned in the Commission of an Offence' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia Special Leave Application

  1. 1 ["Whether an import entry under Form 11 of the Customs Regulations states particulars only according to the declarant's knowledge and belief, or states objective facts." 'Whether, if the person making the entry and the importer were unaware of the false value, there was a principal offence under s. 234 (d) of the Customs Act 1901-1947 capable of supporting liability under s. 236.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prescribed customs entry required objective correctness in the particulars stated, including value or value for duty. The knowledge-and-belief qualifications in the declaration did not qualify the entry itself. Accordingly, the applicant's argument that there could be no principal offence failed, and special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']