SUPREME COURT Claim against Customs Department fails

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32708, 10 September 1971, Page 6

SUPREME COURT Claim against Customs Department fails

A claim for $2300.22 against the Customs Department by Bishop and Company, Ltd, wine and spirit merchant, was dismissed by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The sum was claimed for duty which it was alleged was overpaid, under protest, to the department for 213 cases of whisky withdrawn from the company’s bonded store for home consumption. Messrs P. T. Mahon, Q.C., and C. B. Atkinson appeared for the company and Mr N. W. Williamson for the department, which defended the claim.

Giving his decision, his Honour said that the plaintiff wanted to withdraw a quantity of whisky from its bond store for home consumption. At that stage the whisky became liable for customs duty and an entry was made on the prescribed form. The procedure was for the form to be filled in by the importer or customs agent, who entered the quantity, value, and amount of duty calculated as payable on the spirit

On May 2, 1967, the plaintiff’s customs agent’s clerk produced an entry form to the warehouse keeper of the Customs Department. The clerk did not wait while the warehouse keeper checked the entries. After the warehouse keeper was satisfied that the entry was correct he stamped and initialed the form. It was contended by the Customs Department that it was necessary, before the entry was passed, that the duty should be paid and the entry signed by the cashier who received the duty. Increase in duty “What caused the difficulty in this case was that the customs agent’s clerk forgot about the matter and did not deal with it until the morning of May 5. On that day a resolution was passed by the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Parliament increasing the duty,” said his Honour. "The result was that when the plaintiff sought to pay duty at the old rate the Customs Department declined to accept it and insisted that the duty be paid at the new and higher rate. The new rate was paid, under protest, and the whisky was released for home consumption. “The question for the Court to decide is whether before May 5 an entry was passed by being signed by ‘the proper officer.’ The department says that its warehouse keeper had no authority to pass the entry and that : the proper officer 1 was the , cashier who signed it when the duty was paid. “The warehouse keeper did : not sign the entry but merely placed his initials on it, not in the place provided f or the • signature but lower and to ■ the right of it. “In these circumstances the ; initials did not constitute a > signature. On May 5, 1967, ' there was no entry form signed by the proper officer.’

Consequently at that stage the goods were not deemed to be entered and they were liable for the increased rate of duty which came into force on May 5. There has been no overpayment of duty and judgment will be given for the defendant,” said his Honour.