R v Australasian Films Limited [1921] HCA 11

R v Australasian Films Limited [1921] HCA 11 - HCA 1921 case summary — Zoe

[45]

js no evidence of any intention on the part of Barton or McKnight _ to defraud the revenue; and Iam satisfied that McKnight honestly believed in the truth of the statements made by him, though the statement that the owners were entitled to the drawback was untrue, In the other cases the matter was carried through and the declaration on the debenture was made by Ferguson - a statutory declaration being made by Musgrove in each case ; and I am satisfied, on the evidence, that both Ferguson and Musgrove honestly believed in the truth of the statements made by them respectively, and that neither of them had any intention of defrauding the revenue, In ue course the Company received payment of the amount of draw- ack claimed in respect of each of the above-mentioned films. It is admitted that the Company was not entitled to any sum by way of drawback in any of these cases, all the films having been used and exhibited in Australia, Before making the statutory declaration above referred to, Musgrove was in each case informed by Ferguson that the films in respect of which the declaration was made had not been used in Australia, and accepted that information as sufficient to justify him in making the declaration, without making any further inquiry and without knowledge of the names of the films to which such declaration related. At all relevant times, at least one employee of the Company knew, from information received by him in the course of his duty, that the copy of each of these films on which drawback was claimed had been used and exhibited in Australia; but there is no evidence that any employee of the Company who had this knowledge knew at any relevant time that drawback was being laimed in respect of such copy or knew that any statement had been or was about to be made to the Customs Department that such eopy had not been so used or exhibited, or that the Company was entitled to drawback thereon, nor is there any evidence that any employee of the Company knew at any relevant time that any untrue state: ment had been, was being or was about to be made to the Customs Department in connection with any application for drawback in respect of any of these films. 'The evidence establishes that inquiry by Musgrove, Ferguson or Johnston from the employee in the

[154]

shipment of the said eight arc lamps per s.s. Aeon the said voice for the said lamps, in ordertg enable the Company to evade payment of duty on the value of the said arc lamps at the high rate applicable to are lamps imported ax parts of complete kinematograph machines if imported with such machines in a complete or substantially complete state; and that he intended that the Company should evade payment of such duty. (5) That on 18th November 1916 the defendant Company tad notice by means of the letter received by Musgrove from the New York office of the Company and furnished by Musgrove to Todd on 18th October 1916, and of the letter of 12th October 1916 mentioned above, that the said eight arc lamps per s.. plete kinematograph machines purchased including the said are lamps, and that the rem complete machines were being imported by the same ship. There is no evidence to show that the defendant Musgrove saw the sail letter of 12th October 1916 at any relevant time. (6) That the sid letter of 12th October 1916 was written and sent by the said Milla Johnson, acting in the course of his employment a. sentative of the defendant Company, with intent to enable the defendant Company to evade payment: of the duty properly payable on the importation of the said eight are lamps. (7) That at the time 'of making out the said costing slip the said J. L Collins knew that the said eight aro lamps were part of complete kinematograph machines, and that if an entry had been passed for such are lamps as parts of complete machines duty would have been payable at 4 higher rate ad valorem than the rate at which duty was actually paid on them, and that the reduction in the rate of duty was due to 'the fact that separate invoices had been furnished to the Customs Department for the said are lamps and for the remaining parts of the said machines respectively. (8) That in respect of the eight are lamps shipped by s.s. Roscommon the Company evaded payment of duty which was payable, and committed the other offences against the provisions of sec. 234 charged against it in the statement of

[209]

to avoid payment is necessary to constitute the offence. That H.C. or A. js an intent which the servant might well have, inasmuch as he is '92!- the person who has to deal with the particular matter, 'The penalty tw Keo is imposed upon the owner for the act of the servant if the servant acg!san, commits the default provided for in the statute in the state of mind 4s14x Fiume provided for by the statute. Once it is decided that this is one of | - - ~ those cases where a principal may be held liable criminally for the act of his servant, there is no difficulty in holding that a corporation may be the principal. No mens rea being necessary to make the principal liable, a corporation is in exactly the same position as a principal who is not a corporation."" We proceed to consider, by applying the tests suggested by Atkin J., whether sec. 241 of the Customs Act has the effect of making the principal, if a company, liable for the act of its servant or agent when the person doing the act or some servant or agent of the company from whom he takes his instructions has the intention of defrauding the revenue, The general object: of the statute is to establish machinery for the collection of customs duties in aid of the revenue, and the particular object of Part XIII. (secs. 228-243) is to protect the revenue by imposing penalties upon persons doing acts ealculated tollead to evasion of payment of the duties imposed. It is apparent that the effective protection of the revenue requires that the same precautions shall be taken whether a company or an individual be the owner of goods imported, the fact being that companies are engaged to a great extent in the importation of goods. Conse- quently the object of the statute affords no reason for the exelt- sion of companies from liability under this part of the Act. 'The next thing to be considered is the words used in the relevant provisions of the Act read in the light of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. By sec. 22 (a) of that Act person" is defined as including 4 body corporate, and by see. 24 it is provided that every provision of an Act relating to offences punishable on indictment or summary conviction shall unless the contrary intention appears be deemed to refer to bodies corporate as well as to persons. Returning to the Customs Act, sec. 234 provides that no " person" shall do certain acts under a penalty of £100 It is conceded that under

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (237 paragraphs)

Cited By (6)