Gill & Anor v The Chief Executive Officer of Customs

(2001) 166 FLR 125; [2001] NSWCCA 470

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Customs offences
3. › Smuggling goods
4. › Intent to defraud the revenue
5. › Whether prosecution must prove customs value of imported goods
6. › Whether intent to defraud can be established without proof of actual duty payable
7. › Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 4(1), 233(1)(a), 233(1AA), 233AB(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Customs offences
3. › Evading payment of duty
4. › Duty 'which is payable'
5. › Whether prosecution must prove customs value to establish what duty was payable
6. › Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 234(1)(a), 159
1. Criminal Law
2. › Customs offences
3. › Making false statement to officer
4. › False or misleading in a material particular
5. › Whether proof of customs value necessary depends on the false statement alleged
6. › Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 234(1)(d)(i)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Customs offences
3. › Valuation of imported goods
4. › Determination of customs value by Collector
5. › Whether court may determine customs value in absence of Collector's determination
6. › Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 159, 161G, 161K, 161L

Quick Take

For the offence of smuggling goods under s 233(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), the prosecution is not required to prove the customs value of the imported goods; intent to defraud the revenue can be established from the devising of sham transactions and supply of false figures. For the offences of evading payment of duty (s 234(1)(a)) and making a false statement (s 234(1)(d)(i)), proof of customs value remains necessary where the charge requires proof of what duty was payable or that the stated customs value was false. The earlier decision in Barendse v Comptroller-General of Customs (1996) 136 FLR 243 is no longer to be followed on the smuggling point.