Canada Sugar Refining Company v R
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1898 |
| Year | 1898 |
| Date | 1898 |
Law of Canada -
Held, that by the true construction of the
Sect. 150 of the
APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court (May 1, 1897) reversing a decree of the Exchequer Court of Canada (Sept. 14, 1896), and adjudging that Her Majesty was entitled to recover from the appellants the sum of $39,937 with costs, claimed as duty payable by the appellants on raw sugar imported by them from Hamburg into Canada in the SS. Cynthiana.
The questions under the circumstances related in their Lordships' judgment were:—
(a) Was the said sugar imported into Canada within the meaning of the Customs Tariff Act before May 3, 1895, on which day the statute 58 & 59 Vict. c. 23, imposing the said duty, came into force?
(b) Does the fact that an entry of the said sugar was, under the circumstances detailed, made at the Customs on May 2, 1895, as if the said sugar were free from duty, in the circumstances of this case prevent the Crown from subsequently claiming the duty?
Bray, Q.C., and Gormully, Q.C., for the appellants, contended that the judgment of the
Blake, Q.C., Hon. C. Fitzpatrick, S.-G., Newcombe, Q.C., and Loehnis, for the respondent, contended that the sugar in question was not imported into Canada within the meaning of the Customs Act till the Cynthiana had arrived within the limits of her port of destination, which was Montreal. The date of the ship's arrival within those limits was May 4. Until then no duties could be either levied or paid. The duty attached and was payable on that date. As regards the general practice at Montreal as to entering goods before arrival, that did not alter the date of actual arrival, which alone is the material date for the purposes of the Customs Acts. The free entry on May 2 was an erroneous entry, and was properly cancelled as not binding on the respondent in respect of this claim. Reference was made by way of illustration to The Patria...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Ng Kwok Chun and Another v Public Prosecutor
... ... on the Canadian decision in R v Geesman [1970] 13 CRNS 240 as Canada had, like Singapore, ratified the United Nations` Single Convention on ... , Mr Lim relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Canada Sugar Refining Co v The Queen. 6 The issue in that case was whether a cargo of sugar brought into Canada by the appellant company was liable to duty payable under the Customs Tariff Act 1894 (as amended ... ...
- Chua Yew Eng and Others; PP
- Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd v Motor Sport International Ltd and Others
- Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd v Cheong Yoke Choy (Malaysian Central Depository Sdn Bhd, proposed intervener)