High Court of Australia Gibbs, J. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia Ltd ORDER Order Judgment for the defendant with costs. Usual order as to exhibits. Gibbs, J This action is brought by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to recover the balance of sales tax allegedly payable under and in accordance with the provisions of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930-1966 (Com.) in respect of Polaroid Land film packs and Polaroid picture rolls imported by the defendant and either sold by the defendant or applied to its own use. Neither the fact the sales tax was payable nor the sale value of the goods is in dispute. The sole question in issue is at what rate the tax was payable and that question, in the circumstances of this case, depends on whether or not the goods came within one of the descriptions contained in the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1967 (Com.). If the goods were not covered by the Second Schedule, the rate was 12½ per cent in respect of goods sold by the defendant or applied by it to its own use before 14 August 1968(s 4(c) of Sales Tax Act (No. 6) 1930-1964 (Com.) and ss 2and 4 of the Sales Tax Act (No. 6) 1968 (Com.)) and 15 per cent in respect of goods so sold or applied after that date (s 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act (No. 6) 1930-1968). If the goods were within the Second Schedule the rate at all times was 25 per cent (s 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act (No. 6) 1930 (as amended at all material times)). The defendant has paid tax on the footing that the lower rate applies and if the goods were not covered by the Second Schedule no further tax is payable. The contention on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation was that the goods came within Item 42, or alternatively within Item 38, of the Second Schedule. Items 36 -38 and Item 42 of the Second Schedule read as follows:— "36. Cameras (including cinematograph and stereo cameras), photomatons and machines for taking photographs, but not including photographic equipment of a kind used exclusively or primarily and principally in the reproduction of documents, drawings and plans." "37. Photographic enlarging and reducing apparatus, but not including photographic equipment of a kind used exclusively or primarily and principally in the reproduction of documents, drawings and plans." "38. Accessories and parts for goods covered by item 36 or 37 in this Schedule." "42. Photographic materials and products not covered by item 43 in the First Schedule to this Act, namely:— (a) unexposed photographic plates and film, including sensitized film for cinematograph cameras; (b) photographic sensitized paper, cards, boards, linen and other sensitized materials; and (c) mounts, plaques and medallions, but not including sensitized materials of a kind produced and marketed specifically for use in the reproduction of documents, drawings and plans" . It is common ground that the goods are not covered by Item 43 of the First Schedule and that they are not goods which are produced and marketed specifically for use in the reproduction of documents, drawings and plans. The Polaroid Land film packs ("the film packs") and Polaroid picture rolls ("the picture rolls") as the names imply are used in Polaroid photography. Each is designed for use in a particular type of Polaroid camera. Polaroid photography differs from conventional photography in that the development of the negative and the production of a print are not effected by separate processes but occur immediately after the exposure of the negative so that a finished picture is available less than a minute after the photograph has been taken. A further difference is that in Polaroid photography it is not possible to produce more than one print from any negative. Both the film pack and the picture roll contain eight units each of which is designed to produce a picture. Each unit, in both pack and roll, contains the same essential components, which are:— (1) a film coated with an emulsion of silver halide which renders it sensitive to light (this film becomes the negative); (2) a pod of reagent for developing the photo chemical reaction which is initiated by exposure of the film emulsion to light; and (3) a chemically treated glossy white paper (the positive) on which the finished picture is printed—this paper is not sensitive to light. It is unnecessary to describe the details of the process by which after the negative has been exposed, the negative film and the positive are brought into juxtaposition, and the pod is ruptured so that the reagent is spread between the positive and negative sheets. The processes in the case of the film pack and the picture roll are the same, although the mechanics by which the various parts of the pack or roll are brought together differ slightly. The first submission on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner was that the film pack and the picture roll fall within the description contained in Item 42 of the Second Schedule. It is clear that both the film pack and the picture roll may correctly be described as photographic materials. However, not all photographic materials come within Item 42. The word "namely" in this item has, in my opinion, the ordinary dictionary meaning of "To wit; that is to say". The goods whose description follows are not mere examples of goods covered by the introductory general words but paras. (a), (b) and (c) are intended to be an exhaustive statement of the goods covered by the item. It was submitted on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner that the concluding words of Item 42, commencing "but not including sensitized materials", have the effect that all other photographic materials and products not covered by Item 43 in the First Schedule are included within Item 42, or, put in another way, that those concluding words assist a construction that treats paras. (a), (b) and (c) as merely giving examples of the photographic materials and products covered by the item. I cannot agree with this submission. If the materials which the concluding words exclude did not fall within the description contained in paras. (a), (b) and (c), their exclusion would have indicated that those paragraphs were not intended to be exhaustive, but all sensitized materials not excepted do fall within para. (b), so that to exclude some sensitized materials does not show that the introductory words of Item 42 must cover goods not included in paras. (a), (b) and (c). The case relied on by counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Ambatielos v Anton Jurgens Margarine Works [1923] AC 175; [1922] All ER Rep. 543, turns on the use of the word "etc." and is quite distinguishable from the present case. The question then is whether the film packs and picture rolls come within either para. (a) or para. (b) of Item 42, since clearly they are not within para. (c). The words "unexposed photographic film" in para. (a) do describe one of the components of the film pack and the picture roll. The goods in question have however two other vital components, one of which, the pod of reagent, is certainly not described by any of the words of Item 42. It was submitted on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner that the third component, the chemically treated paper, is described by para. (b) of Item 42. In the view that I take, the Deputy Commissioner would not succeed in showing that the goods in question fell within Item 42 even if I accepted this step in his argument, but I consider that the chemically treated paper that forms a component of the goods in question is not photographic "sensitized paper" or "other sensitized materials" within para. (b). The expert who gave evidence, Mr Land, referred to the paper as "chemically sensitive", and admitted in cross-examination that the paper could be described as "sensitized" because it was treated with material that rendered it sensitive to changes of temperature and also to silver halides, although he did say that he understood the word "sensitized", when used in relation to photographic processes, to refer to light sensitivity. However, as the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary shows, the word "sensitized" in para. (b) seems to me to be used in this sense. It would, in my opinion, be quite an unwarranted extension of the ordinary and accepted meaning of the word to describe paper used in photography as "sensitized" because it has been treated in such a way as to cause it to be sensitive to thermal changes or to react with other chemicals. Since, as I have said, the chemically treated paper that forms the third essential component of the goods in question is not sensitive to light, that paper does not fall within the words of para. (b). The result is that the words of para. (a) describe one of the components of the goods in question—an important component but not the only vital component—and the other components are not described by the words of the paragraph. The question, however, is whether the entire entity, the film pack or picture roll, can be said to fall within the description of "unexposed photographic film" within the ordinary and natural meaning of those words. If those goods do correspond in the ordinary and natural course of meaning to the language which the legislature has used, they may well be within Item 42 even if they are a form of "unexposed photographic film" newly discovered and not known at the time when the item was inserted in the Schedule—cf. Simpson v Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Co [1903] 1 KB 405, at pp 411-412. On the other hand, since Item 42 is part of a taxation statute, its ambit is not to be enlarged by anything less than the clearest intention—Adams v Rau (1931), 46 CLR 572, at p 578. In my opinion, a film pack or a picture roll is not simply a new variety of photographic film; it is a new product, containing not only film but substances which lead to the conversion of the film when exposed into a finished print, and is not described by words which refer only to one part of it. Synecdoche may be a common enough figure of speech, but the framers of a taxation statute will be unwise if they refer only to a part of an object when they intend the whole to be understood. The description "unexposed photographic film" simply does not describe a film pack or picture roll, and no other words in Item 42 describe those goods. I hold that the goods in question are not within Item 42. The alternative submission on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner was that the goods are accessories for cameras or parts for cameras and so within Item 38. The main contention was not that the goods are accessories, but that they are parts. Obviously a part is something which with others makes up a whole, and counsel for the Deputy Commissioner was obliged to submit that both the film pack and picture roll must be regarded as a part of the cameras for use in which they are respectively designed. The evidence showed that the picture roll can be used only in one particular sort of Polaroid camera—a model known as "the Swinger"—and that to take a picture with that model it is necessary to use a picture roll. Similarly a film pack can be used in only one type of camera, although there are several versions of that type. Moreover when either the film pack or the picture roll is placed in position in its camera it is fixed firmly in position by a strong clip. This evidence did not however establish that a film pack or picture roll is part of camera. One thing does not become part of another simply because the latter thing cannot be put to proper use without the aid of the former, even if, in use, the two things are fixed together. In my opinion a film is not part of a camera, nor a bullet of a gun, nor petrol of a motor vehicle. A Polaroid camera is a different thing from a film pack or a picture roll, and is complete even though it has no pack or roll in it. A person who contracted to buy a camera could not, in my opinion, successfully contend that his contract entitled him to the supply of a film as well, or, if he had contracted to buy a Polaroid camera, to the supply of a film pack or a picture roll. The fact that the film pack and the picture roll are each designed to fit only one type of camera, which cannot be worked with any other type of photographic material, merely reinforces the view that the pack and the roll are essential aids to the use of the cameras, but does not show that the pack or the roll is a part of the camera itself. In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Fowler Rex (NSW) Pty Ltd (1967), 118 CLR 160, at p 163; 10 AITR 403, at p 405, Owen, J., held that the word "parts" appearing in the definition of "aids to manufacture" in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1962 (Com.) did no more than describe those things which in ordinary parlance would be described as spare parts for the various classes of goods mentioned. I take the same view of the word "parts" in Item 38. The final question is whether the goods can be described as accessories for a camera. The ordinary dictionary meaning of accessory is an adjunct, which itself is defined as something joined to another, but subordinate, as auxiliary, or dependent upon it. It was because the Deputy Commissioner regarded the goods as essential to the use of a Polaroid camera that he preferred to submit that they are parts rather than accessories. In my opinion, however, the goods in question cannot be regarded as accessories for a Polaroid camera. An accessory for a camera is an extra and additional part of the equipment of the camera itself, such as a light meter, a filter or a wide angle lens, and in the ordinary course of language a film would not be referred to as an accessory for a conventional camera, nor a film pack or a picture roll as an accessory for a Polaroid camera. I hold therefore that the goods in question do not come within any description contained in the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. It follows that sales tax was payable at the lower rate for which the defendant contended and that the full amount of tax payable has already been paid. There must be judgment for the defendant.