For some time Woolworths Ltd., who are the prosecutors, have been importing goods from Japan. The invoices show a buying commission. A long controversy has taken place with the Customs upon the question whether it ought or ought not to be included in ascertaining the value for duty. Woolworths Ltd. have consistently maintained that it represents an ordinary and genuine buying commission which forms no part of the price paid for the goods. In support of this contention they have laid much evidence before the Department of Customs. That Department has exhibited great fluctuation of opinion upon the matter. In the course of the controversy, Woolworths Ltd., in order to obtain their goods, have paid under protest the extra duty involved pursuant to sec. 167 of the Customs Act and then have sued to recover the amount. When that was done the Customs Department has refunded the amount sued for. But next, having presumably repented of the refund, the Department has claimed repayment of the amount refunded. It is not to the purpose to recount the inconsistent decisions given by the Customs Department which appear to have arisen from a reluctance to take a decided course of action. It is reasonably plain, however, that while the Department was not satisfied that the buying commission was a genuine remuneration for services and did not represent part of the price paid by the importer for the goods, it was at the same time unwilling to submit the question for decision in a Court of law. On the other hand, great anxiety has been displayed throughout by Woolworths Ltd. to obtain an opportunity of establishing their case by evidence in open Court. Precisely why the Customs Department feared the consequences of a judicial investigation of the bona fides of the agency arrangement does not appear. But it is clear that the Department of Customs set out to avoid such a method of determining the controversy.