CEO Customs v CHS Enterprises Pty Ltd & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 1133

Reported Decision : 70 ATR 285

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : CEO Customs v CHS Enterprises Pty Ltd & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 1133

HEARING DATE(S) : 16-20 & 23 July, 3 August 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 12 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Smart AJ at 1

DECISION : See paras 373-376

CATCHWORDS : Customs prosecutions for pecuniary penalties - proof of Customs charges beyond reasonable doubt - shipping of honey from Shanghai to Singapore and then from Singapore to Australia - re-export of honey from Australia to USA - origin of goods mis-stated in Entries for Home Consumption and EXIT declarations - no Australian duty avoided - whether aiding and abetting of substantive offences had occurred.

Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 (C'th) LEGISLATION CITED : Customs Act 1901 (C'th) Customs Tariff Act

PARTIES : CEO Customs v CHS Enterprises Pty Ltd & 3 Ors

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20304/04

COUNSEL : (P) P Roberts SC (Customs) (D) Bateman (CHS Enterprises & Hu)

(P) Australian Government Solicitor (Customs) SOLICITORS : (D) Galloways (CHS Enterprises & Hu) J Law (Unicargo & Lam)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION COMMON LAW LIST

SMART AJ

Friday, 12 October 2007

20304/2004: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CUSTOMS (Customs)

v CHS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (CHS), Robin HU, HUI Min Jing, AK UNICARGO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Unicargo) and Pia LAM JUDGMENT Introduction

1 These Customs prosecutions arise out of the importations during the period from about 1 July 2001 until about 1 June 2002 of 125 container loads (each container housing 68 x 200 litre drums) of Chinese honey into Australia, mostly declared as Singaporean honey in the Entries for Home Consumption and the subsequent export of the honey, often within a short period of its arrival, to many destinations in the United States of America under the description of Australian honey or words to that effect. The imports and exports each involve 1.7 million litres of honey having a value for Customs purposes of about $5,027,289. Between July 2001 and May 2002 there were 28 separate consignments to Australia of Chinese honey, many of the consignments consisting of more than one container load. There were 39 separate export consignments comprising 125 container loads. The increase in the number of export consignments over import consignments was due in part to the export consignments going to different ports and parts of the United States. Broadly, and with some exceptions Customs claimed, in summary, that material false and misleading statements were made in the documents lodged both in relation to the imports and exports and that false descriptions were applied to the goods imported and exported. The detailed charges are discussed later.