Case: Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36 ; (1996) 186 CLR 389
Outcome: referred to
Honour observed at [24] that it was common ground that the phrase 'juices of fruits' does not have a trade meaning. At [36] he referred to what was said by a Full Court of this Court in Zeroz Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 35 ATR 349 at 357, 'if there is no trade usage then a fortiori the expression must be used in its ordinary English sense'. But P &amp; N in that case, like the applicant in this case, made a number of submissions which, at the risk of doing the applicant a disservice, went something like this: (1) While the phrase 'juices of fruits' does not have a trade meaning, the phrase is synonymous with 'fruit juice' and that term had a trade meaning as defined in the Food Standards Code . (The Food Standards Code is a reference to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code as defined in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth). The Food Standards Code , standard 2.6.1, with respect to fruit juice and vegetable juice, defined fruit juice or vegetable juice as the liquid portion, with or without pulp, obtained from fruit or vegetables respectively and in the case of citrus fruit, other than lime, the endocarp only of the fruit and included products that had been concentrated and later reconstituted with water to a concentration consistent with that of the undiluted juice from which it had been made. At [21] and [22], his Honour observed that it was common ground that the fruit drinks supplied by P &amp; N met the Food Standards Code requirements. It was also common ground that P &amp; N fruit drinks contained non-fruit based additives, vitamins and minerals or used processing aids within the limits permitted by the Food Standards Code . The evidence was that the fruit drinks contained 98% - 99% fruit juice and 1% - 2% additives and processing aids not directly derived from fruit.) (2) In substituting a trade meaning of 'fruit juice' for 'juices of fruits' that has no trade meaning, reliance was placed on Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36 ; (1996) 186 CLR 389 where the phrase 'silver dye bleach reversal process' in a tariff concession had no trade meaning but the words 'silver dye bleach process' did. The High Court held that the Tribunal's construction of the composite phrase by reference to the trade meaning of the lesser phrase and the ordinary meaning of the word 'reversal', involved no error of law. The submission, by parity of reasoning, was that in the Item 11 composite phrase 'wholly of juices of fruits', the word 'wholly' should be given its ordinary meaning and the words 'juices of fruits' (in both Items 11 and 12) should be given the trade meaning for 'fruit juice'. (3) That having adopted the Foods Standards Code prior to the introduction of the GST Act, its concepts were well known to the Parliament and that it may be taken to have had regard to them in respect of a law dealing with the exemption of food. As to the reliance on Agfa-Gevaert in substituting a trade meaning of 'fruit juice' for 'juices of fruits', his Honour said at [27]: Agfa-Gevaert is quite different from the instant circumstances. The composite phrase was not one that had an obvious ordinary meaning. Nor did the lesser phrase. In those circumstances, the lesser [phrase] aided the proper interpretation of the composite one. Here, the words that comprise the composite phrase are words of common parlance, even if they are oddly arranged, and there is not the same need to call in aid a trade meaning. As to the submission that Parliament may be taken to have adopted the Food Standards Code and its trade meaning of 'fruit juice' in respect of a law dealing with the exemption of food, his Honour said at [34] [35]: [34] ... Furthermore, the extrinsic materials do not suggest that parliament adopted a trade meaning in the Foods Standards Code . If it had, one would have expected it to have departed from the unusual [phrase] "juices of fruits". The extrinsic material makes it clear, in my view, that parliament intended to bring within the scope of the amendments to the GST Act the exemptions or concessions in relation to food products under the existing sales tax legislation. Hence the adoption of the phraseology in Item 11. [35] Parliament was invoking its past legislation rather than adopting a trade meaning of other words in an industry code that the past legislation preceded. The harking back to a phrase used in the sales tax legislation in 1935 leads to the irresistible conclusion that parliament was carrying forward some of the exemptions and concessions with respect to food in the sales tax legislation and not attributing to the phrase any trade meaning of a different term in the Foods Standards Code . There was no logical reason for parliament, in introducing a new tax, to adopt a code intended to ensure that the public was protected from poorly prepared food. The 2 objects are clearly distinct. If parliament had intended to adopt the code, one would have expected a collocation such as: "non-alcoholic carbonated beverages produced wholly in accordance with the Foods Standards Code ". ANALYSIS Relevant Principles of Statutory Construction