The Ministerfor Trade and Customs:

The Minister for Trade and Customs forwards to me the following minute:

I should like to be advised as to future classifications of-

Quibells 'Infallible Disinfectant'

Quibells 'Non-Poisonous Liquid Sheep Dip'

Quibells 'Powder Sheep Dip'

Attention is specially directed to items-

105 Proprietary medicines also medicines for animals etc.

104 Insecticides, Sheepwashes and Disinfectants n.e.i. also to section 138 of the Customs Act 1901. Condy's Fluid as per papers herewith has been ruled by the Comptroller-General to be a proprietary medicine.

Items 104 and 105 so far as they affect this question are as follows:

Div. IX. Drugs and Chemicals.

104 Insecticides, Sheepwashes, and Disinfectants, n.e.i., including Coal-tar preparations for such purposes-free.

105 Medicines, viz., Patent and Proprietary Medicines, . . . and medicines for animals-ad val. 15 percent.

Section 138 of the Customs Act is as follows:

If any goods enumerated in the Tariff are or can be classed under two or more names headings or descriptions with a resulting difference as to duty duty shall be charged when it is a difference between liability to or freedom from duty and the higher or highest of the duties applicable shall be charged when it is a difference as to two or more duties.

The following rules of construction in relation to the Tariff Acts in the United States are to be found in Wilkins Carr on Judicial Interpretation of the Tariff Acts, paragraphs 21 and 27:

21. It is also well settled that when Congress has designated an article by its specific name, and imposed a duty on it by such name, general terms in a later Act, or other parts of the same Act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it.

27. Where there are two distinct provisions of a Tariff Act, either of which might apply to an imported article, it must be held dutiable under that one of the two provisions which is most specific in its character.

These rules though not binding in Australia would in my opinion be followed by our courts in construing the Customs Act 1901 and the Tariff.

The description of articles in 104 is more specific than in 105. Therefore, on the above rules, articles properly falling within 104 cannot be classed as falling within 105, notwithstanding that they may sometimes be used as medicines.

The name by which a manufacturer describes an article is not conclusive as to its proper classification and the question whether it falls within one description or another is to be decided according to its chief or predominant use. See opinion of 11 November 1902 ⁽¹⁾ with reference to unglazed blue paper.

My opinion is that if the articles mentioned are true to name, they should be classed as follows:

[Vol. 2, p. 435]

(1) ) Opinion No. 106.