The Minister for Trade and Customs:

Messrs J. Spicer and Sons have imported some unglazed blue double demy paper and contend that it is free of duty as printing paper in size not less than 20 x 25.

Messrs Sands and McDougall Limited have also imported similar paper and make a similar contention.

A sample of the paper was submitted to Mr A. of Messrs Geo. Robertson and Company and to Mr B., Chairman or President of the Printers Association, both of whom say it is not a printing paper. A sample was also submitted to Mr Brain the Government Printer of Victoria who says: 'This paper is in make a printing. But whether it is used for that purpose I cannot of course say'.

The Minister for Trade and Customs decided that the paper was dutiable as paper n.e.i.

Messrs Malleson England and Stewart on behalf of the importers request the Minister to reconsider the matter.

The Minister forwards the papers to me with the following minute:

This paper though of a printing paper quality is of a colour which renders it unsuitable for ordinary printing purposes such as newspapers books etc. Does the Hon. the Attorney-General under such circumstances think that it comes within the exemption as to printing paper 122B?

I am unable on the facts as stated in the Minister's minute to offer an opinion as to whether the paper comes within the exemption or not.

The question is a question of fact, and its answer depends in my opinion upon the chief or predominant use to which the paper is applied. If the chief or predominant use of the paper is for printing, then it is within the exemption notwithstanding that it is unsuitable for 'ordinary printing purposes such as newspapers books etc' If the chief or predominant use of the paper is not for printing then it is not within the exemption although it is of a printing paper quality. See Meyer v. Cadwalader 89 Fed. Rep. 963; 2 Federal Digest, Vol. II, col. 3519.

[Vol. 2, p. 397]