Opinion Number. 109

Subject

CUSTOMS DUTY
WHETHER REFUNDABLE WHERE CLASSIFICATION PRACTICE BASED ON PATENT MISCONCEPTION OF LAW IS ALTERED

Author
Key Legislation

CUSTOMS ACT 1901, ss. 163, 166 : CUSTOMS TARIFF 1902

Date
Client
The Minister for Trade and Customs

The Minister for Trade and Customs:

The Minister for Trade and Customs asks for my opinion on the following points:

  1. As to duty on drills when coatings vestings or trouserings.
  2. Assuming these goods erroneously classed and afterwards reduced, will section 166 justify the retention of the extra duty first collected?

Item 66 of the Tariff (so far as material) is as follows:

Piece Goods, viz.:-

  1. Woollen, or containing wool, n.e.i ad val. 15%
  2. Coatings, Vestings, Trouserings, n.e.i., Flannels, and
  3. Flannelettes ad val. 15%
  4. Silk . . . ad val. 15%
  5. Velvets ad val. 15%
  6. Cottons and Linens, viz.:-Drills ad val. 5%
  • In my opinion drills, being specifically mentioned in item 66 (E) of the Tariff as dutiable at 5% ad valorem, cannot in any case be classed for duty as 'Coatings, Vestings, Trouserings, n.e.i.'
  • Section 163 (2) of the Customs Act 1901 provides that:
    Whenever duty has been paid through manifest error of fact or patent misconception of the law a refund rebate or remission of the duty as the case may require shall be made in manner prescribed.
  • Section 166 provides that:

    If any practice of the Customs relating to classifying or enumerating any article for duty shall be altered so that less duty is charged upon such article, no person shall thereby become entitled to any refund on account of any duty paid before such alteration.

    In my opinion, if the Customs have claimed duty, as for 'Coatings, Vestings, Trouserings', on goods which were admitted to be drills, duty so paid is paid through patent misconception of law, and a refund should be made. Section 166 does not apply to a practice which is based on a patent misconception of the law.

    [Vol. 2, p. 423]