CEO of Customs v Ozzy Tyre & Tube Pty Ltd & Anor

Customs Act (Commonwealth) 1901 LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act (Commonwealth) 1914

CEO Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 161 R v Lyon (1906) 3 CLR 770 L. Vogel and Son Pty Ltd v Anderson, Minister for State for Customs and Exports for the Commonwealth of Australia (1967) 120 CLR 157 CASES CITED : CEO Customs v Red Dale Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 141 CEO Customs v Corniche Motors Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 244 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Plaintiff - CEO of Customs First Defendant - Ozzy Tyre & Tube Pty Ltd PARTIES : Second Defendant - Ms Lorene Khamis

Plaintiff - Mr Michael Wigney COUNSEL : Defendants - Mr R Toner SC

Plaintiff - Australian Government Solicitors SOLICITORS : Defendants - Mr Joe Weller

• 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

CEO OF CUSTOMS v OZZY TYRE & TUBE PTY LTD AND LORENE KHAMIS

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Ms Lorene Khamis was the sole director of, and owned 50% of the shares in, Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd (hereinafter "Ozzy"). Ozzy, under the control and at the direction of Ms Khamis, imported 18 shipments of tyres between December 1998 and April 2000. Ozzy brought in tyres on which was payable $328,123.07 duty and sought, through false documents and otherwise, to evade $255,805.34 of that duty. 2 In the case of each shipment Ozzy produced to Customs through Ozzy's customs broker, paperwork, including an invoice, understating the amount payable by Ozzy to its overseas supplier of tyres and seeking to have duty calculated on the basis of that understated and falsely invoiced cost. 3 In some cases, another invoice for the true price was issued but not disclosed to Customs. In all cases the true higher value of the shipment was paid by Ozzy to the overseas supplier. In one case the difference was falsely represented as commission. 4 On 6 January 2004, Ozzy and Ms Khamis were each charged with offences under the Customs Act 1901 (C'th) and, after initially indicating that the charges would be defended, on 17 May 2005 each pleaded guilty to the offences on the basis of an agreement concerning the payment of duty avoided and concerning the requirement to pay any penalty imposed. 5 The issue for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed on each of Ozzy and Ms Khamis and in determining that issue there are a number of matters with which the Court must deal. Within the overall nature of the offence and the necessity to have regard to the principles of sentencing including deterrence, retribution and denunciation, there is the important question of whether the objective seriousness of the offence depends, for purposes relevant to my sentencing discretion, on the amount sought to be evaded. Further, given the nature of the different offences there is a real question raised as to whether, and if so to what degree, there is overlapping criminal conduct. Within the issues to be taken into account when considering the subjective circumstances of the offender is whether, in the case of Ms Khamis, the Count is entitled, and if so to what extent, to have regard to good character, if found, in an offence of this kind. Lastly, the Court is faced with an agreement between the parties concerning, in part, the enforcement of any pecuniary penalty I impose. Objective Seriousness of the Offences 6 In dealing with the objective seriousness of the offences with which Ozzy and Ms Khamis are charged, it is necessary to determine whether the amount of duty sought to be evaded affects the objective seriousness. Before doing so it is necessary to describe the facts of each offence, the structure of the relevant parts of the statute and determine the necessity for deterrence, retribution and denunciation. Facts of Each Offence 7 Ozzy is a corporation that carries on the business of importing car tyres, wheels and parts. It operates a warehouse at Hoxton Park and a retail outlet at Bexley. 8 Ms Khamis is, as already stated, the sole director of Ozzy and has been since 3 December 1991. Prior to that time, her brother and mother were directors. Ms Khamis also owned 50% of the share capital of Ozzy and at all relevant times managed its business and was responsible for the relevant dealings with customs agents relating to the importations which were the subject of the charges. 9 Between 18 December 1998 and 10 April 2000, Ozzy imported 18 shipments of tyres, wheels and car parts from two suppliers; Sunshine Industries Limited based in Japan and Heston Trading Pty Ltd based in Singapore. 10 In respect of each of the 18 shipments, Ms Khamis on behalf of Ozzy produced an invoice to Customs, through Ozzy's customs broker, for the purpose of having the shipments entered for home consumption. The amount of this invoice was represented to Customs as being invoice price and transaction value for the purposes of calculating the amount of duty payable upon the importation of the goods. 11 In each case, however, the invoice disclosed to the customs broker and Customs significantly understated the amount paid by the first defendant to the supplier, either for the goods or for the goods and commission. The first defendant in fact paid the suppliers of the relevant shipment consideration that exceeded the amount disclosed. That additional amount was not disclosed to Customs. 12 In some cases (shipments 1, 2, 3, 7 and 18) the supplier produced an additional invoice that included the additional consideration. In one case (shipment 1) the additional invoice described the additional consideration as a "handling and communication" fee or commission. This additional "commission" invoice was not produced to Customs. In other cases, the additional invoice simply disclosed the total larger consideration. The additional "commission" was a price related cost. 13 Because in each case the additional consideration was part of the price of the goods, or was a price related cost, it ought to have been disclosed to Customs. Because the additional consideration was not disclosed to Customs, Customs calculated the transaction value and hence customs value of the shipments only on the basis of the price disclosed in the invoice that was produced to Customs. As a result, significant duty was evaded in respect of each of the shipments. 14 By consenting to convictions being entered in respect of each of the shipments, the defendants acknowledge that the additional payments were not a buying commission and therefore should have been disclosed to Customs as part of the price or price related cost for each of the shipments. Shipment One 15 On or before 18 December 1998, Ozzy ordered the first shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $55,160.67. A commercial invoice in the amount of $14,156.28 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the first shipment of the goods into home consumption. 16 Customs duty in the sum of $2,123.44 was calculated on the false customs value and was paid by Ozzy. 17 As a result of the understatement of the customs value on the entry, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $6,150.66 in duty. Shipment Two 18 On or about 12 January 1999 Ozzy ordered the second shipment of goods from Heston Trading and paid Heston Trading $89,760.00. 19 A commercial invoice to the amount of $35,904.00 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the second shipment of goods into home consumption. 20 Customs duty in the sum of $5,385.60 calculated on the false and understated customs value was paid by Ozzy. 21 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $8,078.40 in customs duty. Shipment Three 22 On or before 19 January 1999, Ozzy ordered the third shipment of goods from Heston Trading and paid Heston Trading $84,028.00. 23 A commercial invoice to the amount of $33,611.20 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the third shipment of goods into home consumption. 24 Customs duty in the sum of $5,041.68 calculated on the false and lower customs value was paid by Ozzy. 25 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $7,562.52 in customs duty. Shipment Four 26 On or before 29 January 1999, Ozzy ordered the fourth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $270,748.42. 27 A commercial invoice to the amount of $31,584.72 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the fourth shipment of goods into home consumption. 28 Customs duty in the sum of $4,737.70 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 29 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $35,874.56 in duty. Shipment Five 30 On or before 22 February 1999, Ozzy ordered the fifth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $105,802.54. 31 A commercial invoice to the amount of $33,925.90 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the fifth shipment of goods into home consumption. 32 Customs duty in the sum of $5,088.88 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 33 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $10,781.50 in duty. Shipment Six 34 On or before 31 March 1999, Ozzy ordered the sixth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $198,155.97. 35 A commercial invoice to the amount of $27,906.19 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the sixth shipment of goods into home consumption. 36 Customs duty in the sum of $4,185.25 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 37 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $25,538.15 in duty. Shipment Seven 38 On or before 23 April 1999, Ozzy ordered the seventh shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $31,705.70. 39 A commercial invoice to the amount of $11,456.21 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the seventh shipment of goods into home consumption. 40 Customs duty in the sum of $1,718.43 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 41 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $3,037.42 in duty. Shipment Eight 42 On or before 27 April 1999, Ozzy ordered the eighth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $99,200.92. 43 A commercial invoice to the amount of $22,209.39 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the eighth shipment of goods into home consumption. 44 Customs duty in the sum of $3,331.40 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 45 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $11,548.74 in duty. Shipment Nine 46 On or before 13 May 1999, Ozzy ordered the ninth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $90,993.18. 47 A commercial invoice to the amount of $27,994.15 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the ninth shipment of goods into home consumption. 48 Customs duty in the sum of $4,199.12 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 49 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $9,449.86 in duty. Shipment Ten 50 On or before 3 June 1999, Ozzy ordered the tenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $212,571.90. 51 A commercial invoice to the amount of $11,060.41 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the tenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 52 Customs duty in the sum of $1,652.70 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 53 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $30,111.29 in duty.

Shipment Eleven 54 On or before 12 June 1999, Ozzy ordered the eleventh shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $93,632.61. 55 A commercial invoice to the amount of $21,257.97 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the eleventh shipment of goods into home consumption. 56 Customs duty in the sum of $3,188.69 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 57 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $10,856.20 in duty.

Shipment Twelve 58 On or before 6 July 1999, Ozzy ordered the twelfth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $33,312.46. 59 A commercial invoice to the amount of $11,663.59 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the twelfth shipment of goods into home consumption. 60 Customs duty in the sum of $1,749.53 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 61 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $3,247.34 in duty.

Shipment Thirteen 62 On or before 13 July 1999, Ozzy ordered the thirteenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $51,617.19. 63 A commercial invoice to the amount of $12,276.08 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the thirteenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 64 Customs duty in the sum of $1,841.41 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 65 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $5,901.17 in customs duty. Shipment Fourteen 66 On or before 21 July 1999, Ozzy ordered the fourteenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $337,704.15. 67 A commercial invoice to the amount of $25,143.38 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the fourteenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 68 Customs duty in the sum of $3,771.49 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 69 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $46,884.13 in customs duty. Shipment Fifteen 70 On or before 26 July 1999, Ozzy ordered the fifteenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $83,077.74. 71 A commercial invoice to the amount of $26,578.07 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the fifteenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 72 Customs duty in the sum of $3,986.71 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 73 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $8,474.95 in customs duty. Shipment Sixteenth 74 On or before 14 September 1999, Ozzy ordered the sixteenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $113,548.86. 75 A commercial invoice to the amount of $32,329.16 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the sixteenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 76 Customs duty in the sum of $4,849.37 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 77 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $12,182.96 in customs duty. Shipment Seventeen 78 On or before 29 September 1999, Ozzy ordered the seventeenth shipment of goods from Sunshine Industries and paid Sunshine Industries $142,620.46. 79 A commercial invoice to the amount of $36,848.07 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the seventeenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 80 Customs duty in the sum of $5,527.21 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 81 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $15,865.86 in customs duty. Shipment Eighteen 82 On or before 24 March 2000, Ozzy ordered the eighteenth shipment of goods from Heston Trading and paid Heston Trading $95,725.00. 83 A commercial invoice to the amount of $67,007.50 was produced to a customs broker to arrange the entry of the eighteenth shipment of goods into home consumption. 84 Customs duty in the sum of $9,939.12 calculated on the false customs value was paid by Ozzy. 85 As a result of the understatement of the customs value, Ozzy evaded payment of no less than $4,259.63 in customs duty. 86 As earlier stated, the total amount of customs duty that Ozzy and Ms Khamis sought to evade was $255,805.34. Scheme of the Act 87 The offences with which Ozzy and Ms Khamis have been charged require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, although, by specific provision (s.247) of the Customs Act the prosecutions are conducted in accordance with the civil procedures of the Court. (See CEO Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 161) 88 A combination of the operation of s.155, s.159 and s.161 of the Customs Act makes clear that the value of the imported goods for the purposes associated with imposing duty is their customs value which is the transaction value of imported goods. (see sub-sections 159(1) and (2) of the Customs Act) The transaction value is the amount equal to the sum of their adjusted price in the import sales transactions (s.161 of the Customs Act) where price is defined as all payments that have been made directly or indirectly by the purchaser to the vendor or to persons related to the vendor (s.161 of the Customs Act) and includes buying commission (s.155 of the Customs Act). Thus the device of seeking to transfer some amount from the purchase price to a buying commission is a device which has no effect on the amount of duty that is payable. 89 In analysing the offences with which each of the offenders is charged, it is necessary to understand that "smuggling" means "any importation … of goods with intent to defraud the revenue." Each of the defendants have been charged with eighteen counts of smuggling contrary to s.233(1)(a) of the Customs Act and eighteen counts of making false statements contrary to s.234(1)(d) of the Customs Act. 90 Section 233(1)(a) makes it an offence to "smuggle any goods" which, from the above, necessarily involves an intention to defraud the revenue. Section 234(1)(a) of the Act makes it an offence to "evade payment of any duty which is payable" and s.234(1)(d) makes it an offence to make a statement intentionally to an officer either reckless as to the fact that the statement is false or knowing that the information is misleading in a material particular. As can be seen from the summary of the offences the contravention of s.233(1) and s.234(1)(a) necessarily involves significantly overlapping criminal conduct and it is difficult to envisage a situation where someone evaded duty that was payable without committing the offence of smuggling. On the other hand the making of a false statement under s.234(1)(d) is not necessarily involved in the offence of smuggling but has overlapping features with the offence of evading payment of duty. It seems that both the offence under s.233(1)(a) and s.234(1)(d) are partly the means by which, in the current circumstances, the offence under s.234(1)(a) is committed. Therefore there is a significant amount of overlapping criminality in the different offences. There seems to be little or no overlapping as between the different sets of offences relating to each of the eighteen different shipments. Each requires a new and different intention, a new and different act of smuggling and a new and different act of dishonesty. 91 The penalties made applicable to the offences with which each of the defendants is charged are set out in s.233AB and s.234 of the Customs Act. The offence of smuggling is set out in s.233AB(1) of the Act and, in the circumstances known in these proceedings, is a penalty not exceeding five times the amount of duty that would have otherwise been payable on the smuggled goods. 92 In relation to the offence of evading duty, s.234(2)(a) of the Customs Act provides for a penalty not exceeding five times the amount of the duty on the goods which would have been evaded if the evasion of duty had been successful and not less than two times that amount. 93 The offence of making a false statement carries a penalty under s.234(2)(c) of a penalty not exceeding 100 penalty units or, under the terms of sub-section 234(3) a penalty not exceeding 50 penalty units, or $5,500.00, together with twice the amount of duty payable on the goods. 94 The temptation in relation to an offence of this kind is to determine the seriousness of the offence largely based on the amount of money involved in the deception. However the Parliament has established a regime which covers a wide range of activity and has, quite deliberately, fixed the penalties (both minimum and maximum) by reference to the amount of money involved in the criminal conduct. As a consequence, the legislature has cleverly built in a factor relating to seriousness by making the penalties directly proportionate to the amounts involved in the criminal conduct. To take account, once more, of the amount involved in the criminal conduct would be to double count that factor in the fixing of the ultimate penalty. 95 As earlier stated, the offences in question cover a range of activity. At one extreme, the smuggling and evasion offences cover the tourist who seeks to bring into Australia liquor, tobacco and/or gifts beyond that which is allowable under the regulations. The circumstances of the offences would include persons who evade duty without any commercial interest or intent. Further, the offences include the importation of goods and associated acts in relevant circumstances where the goods are imported for business interests, but not for the purpose of profiting from the transaction. For example, a business would be guilty of the offences in circumstances where duty was evaded on goods brought in to equip better its facilities or staff. On the other hand, the offences in question, do not cover the importation of goods that are banned. Drug offences are dealt with quite separately and involve quite different penalties. In those circumstances, a situation such as the present, where a company and/or person are involved in the operation of a business which earns profit from the resale of goods imported into Australia, necessitates the view that the offences in question, once committed, are the exercise of a commercial decision to profit out of the deception of Customs and the taxpayer. The circumstances of the commission of such an offence have, in themselves, no redeeming qualities. Moreover, as has been stated for almost as long as the customs legislation has been in force (see R v Lyon (1906) 3 CLR 770), the imposition of heavy penalties for offences of this kind is necessary given the nature of the offence and the conduct in question. To allow an importer of goods to be required to pay only that which has been evaded in duty imposes no disincentive on the repetition of the offence and, more importantly, provides a commercial incentive on seeking to evade the duty. I will, later in this judgment, deal with the nature of the agreement reached which gave rise to the consent to the orders that the sections had been contravened. 96 It is essential, in dealing with a commercial enterprise that has made profits to which it was not entitled by the evasion of duty and the commission of these offences to impose condign punishment which properly reflects the denunciation of the conduct, the retribution that society needs to impose and properly establishes a deterrent for any other like minded entity or person from committing similar offences. 97 The circumstances of the commission of these offences were such that the corporate and personal defendants involved themselves in the utilisation of two sets of accounts, one of them false, the deliberate understatement of the price paid for goods, the planned and pre-meditated determination that it was in their commercial interests to commit an offence and perpetrated these offences over a significant period of time. 98 The practical restrictions on the capacity of law enforcement agencies to apprehend every offender for every offence necessarily requires the legislature and the courts to ensure that deceitful conduct in a commercial enterprise, once determined, is appropriately punished. The courts must ensure that there is a deterrent to the commission of such offences by persons acting in a commercial enterprise and not allow the deception to occasion only that which would be required to be paid if the offenders behaved as the law requires. In R v Lyon, supra, O'Connor J said: "… it is one of the underlying principles of the Act that the Government should rely upon the importer to honestly state the truth according to his knowledge in reference to a matter in which he knows everything and the Customs authorities know nothing. In the case of the duties payable ad valorem if the Customs authorities took steps in each case to satisfy themselves of the value of the goods for duty before allowing them to land, trade would be seriously hampered. Almost of necessity they must take the importer's statement of value prima facie as true. The policy of the Act, therefore, is that the Customs authorities trust to the statement of the person importing the goods." 99 I repeat the oft quoted passage from Kitto J L. Vogel and Son Pty Ltd v Anderson, Minister for State for Customs and Exports for the Commonwealth of Australia (1967) 120 CLR 157 at 164: "The duty evaded has now been paid, and I understand that when the evasions were discovered, the defendant's gave the Customs every assistance in their investigations. But when all the considerations relied upon by the defendants have been given due attention, the case still cannot be regarded as other than a serious one. Not only are the defendants guilty of a sustained course of conscious wrong-doing, but the offences are in a field in which punishments for deliberate offences must be severe. The Customs laws represent the judgment of Parliament upon an important aspect of the economic organisation of the community and the object of the penal provisions is to make that judgment as effective as possible. It is important to remember that Customs officers have of practical necessity to rely extensively upon the information supplied to them by importers, for the flow of commerce could not be maintained if every importation had to be fully investigated. Moreover, detection of frauds is not always easy. No doubt ordinary conceptions of honesty and of civic responsibility suffice to ensure a great deal of fair dealing with the Customs but for some people little seems to matter but fear of the consequences of discovery. The Customs Act makes those consequences potentially drastic. It is for the courts to make them, in suitable cases, drastic in fact, for otherwise traders who are not saved by qualms of conscience from willingness to defraud their fellow citizens may weigh the profits they hope for against the penalties they have cause to fear and find the gamble worthwhile." 100 On appeal to the Full Court, the High Court said (120 CLR at 168): "As already appears, these penalties were in each case the equivalent of four times the duty evaded whilst the minimum penalty was imposed in respect of each of the remaining charges. … There is, in our view, no room for the suggestion that in fixing the penalties on these charges his Honour erred on any matters of principle; the argument merely is that penalties were excessive in the circumstances. But his Honour's reasons make it plain why penalties of this magnitude were imposed and amply demonstrate the need for such penalties." 101 In the circumstance of the commission of these offences and taking no account for this purpose of the amounts involved, I would assess the criminality of the conduct as above mid range of penalties. I, of course, will and do take account of the overlapping criminal conduct associated with the three different kinds of offences relating to each of the eighteen shipments. Subjective Circumstances 102 There is little or nothing that can be said that would differentiate the company, Ozzy, from Ms Khamis in objective features. As already stated, both defendants pleaded guilty, or, more accurately, consented to findings of contravention when the matter was listed for hearing on the substantive matters. This was the first time that the defendants had pleaded guilty and each had, before that, maintained the right to defend the proceedings. The defendants are not and cannot be the subject of any penalty for maintaining a right, sacrosanct in the law, of putting the Customs to proof. Indeed, they are entitled to the benefits of their guilty plea, although not at the highest level, given that the plea was entered at a later time than could have been the case. Notwithstanding that the plea was entered on the day on which the matter was set down for hearing, there were obviously negotiations between Customs and the defendants in relation to the plea which gave rise to the agreement, in writing, and the agreed statement of facts. In the circumstances I propose to allow a 15% discount in sentencing for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. Amongst other factors involved in that discount is that the proceedings and the documentation provided to the Court, while showing a relatively strong case for the Customs, may have been difficult to prove in relation to every single incident and each valuation. Further, the complexity of the documentation and the transactions which they evidence would have made the substantive hearing of the matter a lengthy and complicated proceeding which would have occasioned considerable cost to both parties a significant part of which would have been irrecoverable. 103 Ms Khamis swore an affidavit which was put before me and the first twelve paragraphs of which were read. Ms Khamis was not cross examined on the affidavit. 104 Her personal circumstances are that the business, Ozzy Tyre & Tube Pty Ltd, was originally started by her father and was run out of a service station. He had a partner and, quite separately, there are suggestions that some of the difficulties faced by Ms Khamis were associated with wrong-doing, either moral or legal, associated with the resolution of issues of property ownership which arose on the death of her father. 105 Her father immigrated from Lebanon to Australia in approximately 1970 and worked as a factory hand, a taxi driver and ultimately bought the service station which formed the basis for the Ozzy business. He had, originally, a partner, who left the business in about 1990 and then ran the business together with another person. In 1991, Ms Khamis' father died whilst in Lebanon from a bomb explosion in a car in which he was travelling. Up until that time, Ms Khamis had nothing to do with the running of the Ozzy business, but from the time of the tragic death of her father, was required to start work there. The business was run by his then partner and Ms Khamis did the clerical work including answering phones, filing invoices, depositing money and running errands. 106 For reasons associated with the needs of the family, as the eldest child, Ms Khamis was required to forsake any independent career in order to run the business and support the family. It was in these circumstances that Ms Khamis became involved in the business and suffered the pressure placed upon her as a young woman by the need to ensure the security and living expenses of her entire family. In 1991 Ms Khamis was 18 years of age and necessarily felt that pressure and reacted to it in ways that a more mature and experienced person may not have. 107 It is rare, if not exceptional, for good character to be taken into account in "white collar crimes". Generally it is the very good character of the offender that has enabled the offender to perpetrate the crime. However, in circumstances such as the present where, in extremely tragic circumstances, a young girl has been required to undertake the pressures of running a business and supporting her mother and siblings, the character of the offender can not be ignored and she is entitled to understanding of the circumstances that gave rise to the pressure to make a profit and no doubt contributed to her succumbing to involvement in criminal activity. Ms Khamis effectively took over the business from 1995, at the age of 22. 108 Further, the plea of guilty itself shows a degree of remorse and contrition for the conduct that has been committed. It is implicit in the foregoing that Ms Khamis has no criminal record which is a matter I also take into account in fixing the sentence.

The Agreement between the Parties 109 The parties reached agreement which was tendered to the Court, the essence of which was that the duty that had otherwise been avoided has been paid to Customs. It also provides for the declarations and orders of contravention and for the Court to impose a penalty. It recites, for which there is evidence before the Court, that the corporate and personal defendant are impecunious, or were, once the unpaid duty had been paid. The CEO of Customs, under that agreement, has agreed to accept the amount of the unpaid duty as full settlement and in full and final satisfaction of the duty, cost and penalties fixed by the Court. The CEO has undertaken not to enforce the balance of the judgment sum. The agreement further allows, if the CEO considers "on reasonable facts at any time" that the information as to impecuniosity contained in the affidavit of Ms Khamis "is materially incorrect at the date of its making", the CEO to be at liberty to terminate the agreement and take such proceedings to recover the balance of any judgment sum. The nature of this agreement causes me some concern. I do not by that suggest any impropriety or inappropriate conduct on the part of either the CEO of Customs or any Customs officer or the defendants or their legal representatives. The concern, rather is more fundamental as to the role of the Court in circumstances of the making of such an agreement. The further concern is the purpose and effect of the legislative scheme to which reference has already been made. 110 I have been referred to a number of cases that deal with similar agreements. (see CEO Customs v Red Dale Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 141 at [9] - [10]; CEO Customs v Corniche Motors Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 244 at [5] - [6]) 111 I am grateful to the parties for providing the agreement which was essential for the sake of transparency and ensuring that the Court is apprised of the situation before it. Not to provide the agreement to the Court would have been quite inappropriate and improper. Nevertheless there are differences between the principle (see Red Dale and Corniche Motors above) of settling a customs prosecution on a commercial basis and the problems associated with the agreement now before the Court. There is no doubt that a customs prosecution may be settled on a commercial basis "without breaching the policy of the Customs Act or the administration of the criminal law or in any way detracting from the discretion of the court with regard to sentencing a person upon conviction in proceedings under the Customs Act." This agreement, however, asks the Court to impose penalties in circumstances where those penalties, it is agreed, will not be enforced, except where the agreement precluding their enforcement has been obtained, essentially, by fraud. 112 I make it clear that the above is not a criticism of the agreement as reached, nor is it intended to be a criticism of the need of Customs to take into account impecuniosity in determining its future conduct. Ultimately every order for a penalty can be enforced or not enforced as the party capable of enforcing it determines. The agreement allows the Court to disregard questions of impecuniosity in determining the penalty. However, the agreement has the effect that there is no penalty, as a matter of practice, imposed upon either the corporate or the personal defendant. In this day and age when corporate entities are capable of being conducted in a way which ensures their impecuniosity and personal defendants are capable of obtaining benefits to which they are not legally entitled, there are significant policy issues associated with an agreement of this kind. I am not here suggesting that the circumstances of this case in any way mirror such a situation. But it is possible, at least hypothetically, for a commercial entity to embark upon the kind of conduct described in these offences and to do so in a way which would ensure the corporate entity would be impecunious and unable to pay any subsequent penalty imposed by the Court. Similarly, it is not beyond the realms of imagination, to extrapolate from current circumstances, for a family member entrusted to run that business to be wholly impecunious yet the entirety of the family may have benefited from the criminal conduct. I repeat, there is nothing in the factual material before this Court in these cases, which would suggest such a situation here. These comments are intended to be far more general. The difficulty with which Customs is faced is that by their very nature, a penalty which is confined to a pecuniary penalty will, in the case of impecuniosity, be problematic. It may be that the legislature needs to consider seriously the capacity, in the case of impecuniosity or inappropriateness of pecuniary penalty, for other penalties to apply. I do not here suggest that full time imprisonment would be appropriate, but some form of community service either with or without supervision and/or restrictions on movement, or other kind of penalty, should be included in the range of penalties available so that persons who perpetrate criminal offences of this kind can be the subject of a practical punishment which, in turn, would have the added benefit of repaying society with the assets of intelligence and hard work which, for example, the personal defendant in this matter, clearly has. 113 Having considered the above, I do not feel that there is anything in the agreement which would preclude the Court from imposing a penalty it would otherwise consider appropriate and, in the circumstances, proceed so to do. Indeed I welcome the attitude of the parties and their legal representatives which enabled a commercial resolution but lament the lack of alternate options which would allow the Court to impose condign punishment. 114 In fixing the penalty I have taken into account all of the matters discussed above. In relation to the principle of totality of sentencing, as explained by the High Court in Mill (1988) 166 CLR 59 and Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610, I intend to fix penalties in the less severely punishable offences and then adjust the more severe penalty downward to take account of the total criminal conduct and the overlapping elements of that conduct. 115 As a matter of ease of calculation I shall utilise the facility provided by s.4K(4) of the Crimes Act 1914 (C'th) impose one penalty for each of the three contraventions of the Act for each defendant. In doing so each penalty will take account of the eighteen shipments. 116 In the schedule of available penalties subsequently provided to the Court by Customs, the penalties in relation to the making of a false statement and smuggling are calculated on the total duty payable. Given the definition of "smuggling" to which reference has already been made and the context of s.233 and s.233AB(1)(a) it seems that the calculation should be based upon "the duty evaded" and/or the excess value (i.e. the true value less the declared value) of the goods as this duty or these goods are the only part of the importation for which the duty is sought to be evaded and/or for which there is an intention to defraud the revenue. Further, my construction of s.233AB(1) requires a minimum penalty for the offence of smuggling of twice the amount of duty that would have been payable and was not. 117 I shall include in the orders penalties of the defendants of the following order and calculated in the following manner: (a) First Defendant: Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd (i) False Statement (18 offences) (Total duty payable: $328,123.07) $3,000 + $400,000 less 15%: $342,400 (ii) Smuggling (18 offences) (Total duty on smuggled goods: $255,805.34) 4 times duty: $1,023,221.30 less 15%: $869,738.10 (iii) Evasion (18 offences) - (Total duty evaded: $255,805.34) 4 times duty: $1,023,221.30 less 15%: $869,738.10 less allowance for overlapping criminal activity from (i) and (ii) (say 25%) Total fine for evasion: $566,738.10

I then make a further allowance, of a small kind, to take account of the subjective factors associated with the corporate defendant including the lack of prior convictions and set the penalties at: (i) False Statements: $325,000 (ii) Smuggling: $850,000 (iii) Evasion: $550,000

(b) Second Defendant: Ms Lorene Khamis The calculations for the second defendant are the same as the first, but I allow for the subjective factors to a far greater degree because such factors include not only the lack of prior conviction but the otherwise good character of Ms Khamis and the circumstances of her personal life which, in part, led to the behaviour. I shall impose the following penalties: (i) False Statements (18 offences): $250,000 (ii) Smuggling (18 offences): $750,000 (iii) Evasion (18 offences): $512,000 118 The total effective fines imposed are: (a) on Ozzy Tyre and Tube Pty Ltd: $1,725,000 (b) on Ms Lorene Khamis: $1,512,000 The Court makes the following orders: Orders in respect of the first shipment

First Defendant 119 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 623 packages of rubber, steel belted, radial ply tyres ("the first shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

120 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 119. 121 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $6,150.66 payable on the first shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act. 122 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 121.

123 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the first shipment of goods was AUD $14,156.28 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $55,160.67, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act. 124 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 123.

Second Defendant 125 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 smuggle the first shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

126 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 125.

127 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 evade customs duty of AUD $6,150.66 payable on the first shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

128 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 127.

129 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 11 January 1999 knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the first shipment of goods was AUD $14,156.28 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $55,160.67, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

130 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 129.

Orders in respect of the second shipment First Defendant 131 A declaration that that the First Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 890 packages of rubber, steel belted, radial ply tyres ("the second shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

132 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 131.

133 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $8,078.40 which was payable on the second shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

134 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 133.

135 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the second shipment of goods was AUD $35,904.00 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $89,760.00, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

136 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 135.

Second Defendant 137 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 smuggle the second shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

138 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 137.

139 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $8078.40 which was payable on the second shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

140 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 139.

141 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 12 January 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the second shipment of goods was AUD $35,904.00 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $89,760.00, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

142 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 141.

Orders in respect of the third shipment First Defendant 143 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 922 packages of rubber, steel belted, radial ply tyres ("the third shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

144 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 143.

145 A declaration that that the First Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $7,562.52 which was payable on the third shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

146 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 145.

147 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the third shipment of goods was AUD $33,611.20 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $84,028.00, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

148 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 147.

Second Defendant 149 A declaration that that the Second Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 smuggle the third shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

150 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 149.

151 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $7,562.52 which was payable on the third shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

152 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 151.

153 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 4 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the third shipment of goods was AUD $33,611.20 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $84,028.00, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

154 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 153.

Orders in respect of the fourth shipment First Defendant 155 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 22 February 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 535 packages of aluminium wheels, exhaust pipes, mufflers and other car parts ("the fourth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

156 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 155.

157 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 24 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $35,874.56 which was payable on the fourth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

158 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 157.

159 A declaration that the First Defendant did, on or about 24 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fourth shipment of goods was AUD $31,584.72 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $270,748.42, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

160 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 159.

Second Defendant 161 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 22 February 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the fourth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

162 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 161.

163 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 24 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $35,874.56 which was payable on the fourth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

164 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 163.

165 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 24 February 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fourth shipment of goods was AUD $31,584.72 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $270,748.42, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

166 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 165.

Orders in respect of the fifth shipment First Defendant 167 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 474 tyres ("the fifth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

168 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 167.

169 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $10,781.50 which was payable on the fifth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

170 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 169.

171 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fifth shipment of goods was AUD $33,925.90 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $105,802.54 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

172 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 171.

Second Defendant 173 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the fifth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

174 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 173.

175 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $10,781.50 which was payable on the fifth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

176 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 175.

177 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 24 March 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the False Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the False Defendant stated that the customs value of the fifth shipment of goods was AUD $33,925.90 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $105,802.54 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

178 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 177.

Orders in respect of the sixth shipment First Defendant 179 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 19 April 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 389 aluminium wheels, tyres and other metal articles ("the sixth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

180 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 179.

181 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 20 April 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $25,538.15 which was payable on the sixth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

182 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 181.

183 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 20 April 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the sixth shipment of goods was AUD $27,906.19 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $198,155.97, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

184 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 183.

Second Defendant 185 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 19 April 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the sixth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

186 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 185.

187 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 20 April 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 20 April 1999 evade payment of customs duty of AUD $25,538.15 which was payable on the sixth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

188 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 187.

189 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 20 April 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the sixth shipment of goods was AUD $27,906.19 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $198,155.97, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

190 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 189.

Orders in respect of the seventh shipment First Defendant 191 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 17 May 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 48 aluminium wheels ("the seventh shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

192 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 191.

193 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 18 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $3,037.42 which was payable on the seventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

194 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 193.

195 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 18 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the seventh shipment of goods was AUD $11,456.21 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $31,705.70, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

196 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 195. Second Defendant 197 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 17 May 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the seventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

198 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 197.

199 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 18 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $3.037.42 which was payable on the seventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

200 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 199.

201 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 18 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the seventh shipment of goods was AUD $11,456.21 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $31,705.70, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

202 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 201.

Orders in respect of the eighth shipment First Defendant 203 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 1134 tyres ("the eighth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

204 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 203.

205 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $11,548.78 which was payable on the eighth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

206 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 205.

207 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eighth shipment of goods was AUD $22,209.39 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $99,200.92, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

208 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 207.

Second Defendant 209 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the eighth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

210 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 209.

211 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $11,558.78 which was payable on the eighth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

212 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 211.

213 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 19 May 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eighth shipment of goods was AUD $22,209.39 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $99,200.92, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

214 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 213.

Orders in respect of the ninth shipment First Defendant 215 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, smuggle goods, namely 1,180 packages of tyres ("the ninth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

216 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 215.

217 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, evade payment of customs duty of AUD $9,449.86 which was payable on the ninth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

218 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 217.

219 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the ninth shipment of goods was AUD $27,994.15 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $90,993.18, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

220 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 219.

Second Defendant 221 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on about 9 June 1999 smuggle the ninth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

222 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 221.

223 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of $AUD9,449.86 which was payable on the ninth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

224 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 223.

225 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 9 June 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the ninth shipment of goods was AUD $27,994.15 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $90,993.18, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

226 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 225.

Orders in respect of the tenth shipment First Defendant 227 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 23 June 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 426 packages of aluminium wheels, exhaust system, valves, air filters and engine parts ("the tenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

228 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 227.

229 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 29 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, evade payment of customs duty of AUD $30,111.29 which was payable on the tenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

230 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 229.

231 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 29 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the tenth shipment of goods was AUD $11,060.41 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $212,571.90, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

232 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 231.

Second Defendant 233 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 23 June 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the tenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

234 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 233.

235 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 29 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $30,111.29 which was payable on the tenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

236 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 235.

237 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 29 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the tenth shipment of goods was AUD $11,060.41 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $212,571.90, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

238 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 237.

Orders in respect of the eleventh shipment First Defendant 239 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 7 July 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 1184 packages of tyres ("the eleventh shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

240 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 239.

241 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 13 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $10,856.20 which was payable on the eleventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

242 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 241.

243 A declaration that the First Defendant did, on or about 13 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales, knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eleventh shipment of goods was AUD $21,257.97 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $93,632.61, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

244 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 243. Second Defendant 245 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 7 July 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the eleventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

246 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 245.

247 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 13 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $10,856.20 which was payable on the eleventh shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

248 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 247.

249 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 13 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eleventh shipment of goods was AUD $21,257.97 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $93,632.61, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

250 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 249.

Orders in respect of the twelfth shipment First Defendant 251 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 28 July 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 518 tyres ("the twelfth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

252 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 251.

253 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 30 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $3,247.34 which was payable on the twelfth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

254 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 253.

255 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 30 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the twelfth shipment of goods was AUD $11,663.59 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $33,312.46, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

256 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 255.

Second Defendant 257 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 28 July 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the twelfth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

258 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 257.

259 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 30 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 30 July 1999 evade payment of customs duty of AUD $3,237.34 which was payable on the twelfth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

260 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 259.

261 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 30 July 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of and offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 30 July knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the twelfth shipment of goods was AUD $11,663.59 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $33,312.46, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

262 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 261.

Orders in respect of the thirteenth shipment First Defendant 263 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 4 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 384 tyres ("the thirteenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

264 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 263.

265 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 3 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $5,901.17 which was payable on the thirteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

266 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 265.

267 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 3 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the thirteenth shipment of goods was AUD $12,276.08 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $51,617.19, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

268 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 267.

Second Defendant 269 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 4 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the thirteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

270 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 269.

271 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 3 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $5,901.17 which was payable on the thirteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

272 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 271

273 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 3 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the thirteenth shipment of goods was AUD $12,276.08 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $51,617.19, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

274 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 273.

Orders in respect of the fourteenth shipment First Defendant 275 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 13 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 713 packages of rims, tyres and vehicle parts ("the fourteenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

276 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 275.

277 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 17 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $46,884.13 which was payable on the fourteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

278 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 277.

279 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 17 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fourteenth shipment of goods was AUD $25,143.38 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $337,704.15, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

280 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 279.

Second Defendant 281 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 13 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the fourteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

282 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 281.

283 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 17 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did on or about 17 August 1999 evade payment of customs duty of AUD $46,884.13 which was payable on the fourteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

284 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 283.

285 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 17 August 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fourteenth shipment of goods was AUD $25,143.38 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $337,704.15, contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

286 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 285.

Orders in respect of the fifteenth shipment First Defendant 287 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 27 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 866 packages of tyres ("the fifteenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

288 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 287.

289 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 1 September 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $8474.95 which was payable on the fifteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

290 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 289.

291 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 1 September 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fifteenth shipment of goods was AUD $26,578.07 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $83,077.74 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

292 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 291.

Second Defendant 293 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 27 August 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the fifteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act. 294 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 293. 295 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 1 September 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $8474.95 which was payable on the fifteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act. 296 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 295. 297 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 1 September 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the fifteenth shipment of goods was AUD $26,578.07 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $83,077.74 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act. 298 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 297.

Orders in respect of sixteenth shipment First Defendant 299 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 9 October 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 1,005 tyres ("the sixteenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act. 300 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 299.

301 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 11 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $12,182.96 which was payable on the sixteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

302 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 301.

303 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 11 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the sixteenth shipment of goods was AUD $32,329.16 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $113,548.86 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

304 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 303.

Second Defendant 305 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 9 October 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the sixteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

306 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 305.

307 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 11 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $12,182.96 which was payable on the sixteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

308 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 307.

309 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 11 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the sixteenth shipment of goods was AUD $32,329.16 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $113,548.86 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

310 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 309.

Orders in respect of the seventeenth shipment First Defendant 311 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 22 October 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 943 packages of tyres ("the seventeenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

312 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 311.

313 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 25 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $15,865.86 which was payable on the seventeenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

314 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 313.

315 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 25 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the seventeenth shipment of goods was AUD $36,848.07 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $142,620.46 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

316 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 315.

Second Defendant 317 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 22 October 1999 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the seventeenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

318 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 317.

319 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 25 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $15,865.86 which was payable on the seventeenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

320 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 319.

321 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 25 October 1999 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the seventeenth shipment of goods was AUD $36,848.07 when the true customs value of those goods was AUD $142,620.46 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

322 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 321.

Orders in respect of the eighteenth shipment First Defendant 323 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 7 April 2000 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales smuggle goods, namely 993 tyres and 20 truck tyres ("the eighteenth shipment of goods"), contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

324 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 323.

325 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 10 April 2000 at Sydney in New South Wales evade payment of customs duty of AUD $4,259.63 which was payable on the eighteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

326 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 325.

327 A declaration that the First Defendant did on or about 10 April 2000 at Sydney in New South Wales knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eighteenth shipment of goods was $67,007.50 when the true customs value of those goods was $94,125.00 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

328 Order that the First Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 327.

Second Defendant 329 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 7 April 2000 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did smuggle the eighteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 233(1)(a) of the Act.

330 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 329.

331 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 10 April 2000 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did evade payment of customs duty of AUD $4,259.63 which was payable on the eighteenth shipment of goods, contrary to section 234(1)(a) of the Act.

332 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 331.

333 A declaration that the Second Defendant did on or about 10 April 2000 at Sydney in New South Wales aid and abet the commission of an offence by the First Defendant, namely that the First Defendant did knowingly or recklessly make a statement to an officer of Customs which was false in a material particular, in that the First Defendant stated that the customs value of the eighteenth shipment of goods was $67,007.50 when the true customs value of those goods was $94 125.00 contrary to section 234(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

334 Order that the Second Defendant be convicted of the offence particularised in paragraph 333. 335 I impose the following penalties: (a) On the first defendant: (i) 18 offences of making false statement $325,000 (ii) 18 offences of smuggling: $850,000 (iii) 18 offences of Evasion: $550,000 Total: $1,725,000 (b) On the second defendant: (i) 18 offences of making false statement $250,000 (ii) 18 offences of smuggling: $750,000 (iii) 18 offences of Evasion: $512,000 Total: $1,512,000

Other orders 336 An order that the Defendants pay to the Plaintiff unpaid duty for the 18 shipments as pleaded in the statement of claim in the amount of $255,805.34; and

337 An order that the Defendants pay the costs of the Plaintiff fixed in the amount of $50,000.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.