NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING
CARGO INTENDED FOR MELBOURNE WRONGLY CONSIGNED TO SYDNEY: WHETHER CARRIAGE FROM SYDNEY TO MELBOURNE AMOUNTS TO ENGAGEMENT IN COASTING TRADE
NAVIGATION ACT 1912, s. 7
The Comptroller-General of Customs has forwarded me the following memorandum for advice:
The s.s. South Africa, a vessel not registered in Australia and not licensed to engage in the coasting trade, brought a consignment of explosives to Australia about nine months ago, part of which was consigned to Sydney and was landed in due course. It was subsequently found that the parcel landed at Sydney, consisting of about 600 cases, should have been consigned to Melbourne and landed at that port before the vessel left for Sydney.
- The South Africa is now back at Sydney and the agents have requested permission to convey the parcel of explosives to Melbourne in the ship as wrongly consigned cargo. In connection with this matter, attention is invited to Circular C.N.S. 21/2 of 7 September 1921 (copy attached), paragraph (c) of which under the heading of 'cargo' deals with cargo inadvertently landed at wrong port or overcarried.
- The favour of advice is requested as to whether cargo wrongly consigned may be treated in the same manner as cargo inadvertently landed at wrong port.
In order that the carriage of cargo between ports in the Commonwealth shall not amount to engagement in the coasting trade it is necessary that the cargo shall be consigned on a through bill of lading to or from a port beyond Australia and its Territories and shall not be trans-shipped to or from any ship trading exclusively in Australian waters which is not licensed under the Navigation Act.
In the case submitted the cargo has been landed at the port of destination specified in the bill of lading and it is considered that any further sea carriage of the goods to other ports in the Commonwealth or its Territories is not within the proviso to section 7 of the Act.
Wrongly consigned cargo is in my opinion in a different position to cargo wrongly landed or overcarried. In such cases the cargo has not been delivered as required by the bill of lading, but in cases where the cargo has been landed in accordance with the bill of lading the carriage is finished and any further carriage subsequently found to be necessary, either by reason of mistake in consigning or from other cause, cannot in my opinion be treated as carriage on a through bill of lading within the meaning of the proviso to section 7.
[Vol. 19, p. 130]