Mr. Merralls Q.C. for the appellants submits, first, that each vessel was currently engaged in making international voyages. Viewed from a Japanese perspective, each vessel was engaged at the relevant time in making an international voyage. Although the voyage began and ended in a Japanese port, the voyage entailed, in the light of its duration, visits to South African and Australian ports in the course of a single enterprise marked by a unity of purpose - the catching of a full load of southern bluefin tuna to be brought home to Japan: see Board of Trade v Baxter [3] . However, the definition of international voyage in s. 130C of the Customs Act, which is plainly intended to be an exhaustive one, adopts a different perspective and, as one might expect, an Australian perspective. It assumes a voyage beginning or ending at a place in Australia. It looks neither to the totality of the voyage in which the vessel is engaged, nor merely to the type of voyage in which the vessel is regularly or habitually engaged. Instead, the definition simply looks to the making of a particular voyage between a place in Australia (i.e. the place where the ship is when the question arises as to liability for excise duty) and a place outside Australia. The words "whether direct or indirect" take account of the circumstance that a vessel may, e.g., proceed to or from an Australian port to a foreign port via another Australian port. In this situation the fact that a foreign port is not the previous port of call or the immediate destination does not detract from the international character of the voyage.