The majority held that 'intention of defrauding the revenue' under s 233BABAD(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) requires proof that the accused intended dishonestly to deprive the revenue of customs duty payable, and is not satisfied by proof merely that the accused knew duty was payable and intended to avoid payment. A trial direction that omits the element of dishonesty is inadequate. However, Mitchell JA dissented, holding that no additional requirement of dishonest means is needed beyond importing goods knowing tax is payable and intending to avoid payment. The question may require resolution by a higher court.
The full text is available to signed-in members.