388 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART 111 
the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth, section 192 
was beyond the power of the Australian Commonwealth to 
snact if applied to such a case as that now under debate. 
Their Lordships think that the objection is founded on 
a misapprehension of what the section enacts. The section 
assumes the lawful imposition of the Customs seals for 
the purpose of exempting from duty goods upon which the 
Commonwealth might have exacted import duties. But in 
case of trade and commerce, and as a regulation for naviga- 
tion, all of which subjects are within the competence of the 
Commonwealth Legislature, the shipowner is permitted to 
have on board and in Australian ports goods so sealed up 
that they cannot be used while the seals remain unbroken. 
This is a privilege accorded to the shipowner who might 
be compelled to pay duties in respect of all goods on board 
his ship. The offence created by section 192 is the com- 
posite act of breaking the seals and coming into an Australian 
port with the seals broken. 
When the arrangement referred to has been permitted to 
the shipowner for the purpose of exempting him from paying 
duty, it is immaterial where the act of breaking the seals takes 
place. When he comes back into an Australian port with 
the seals broken, the offence is complete. 
As Mr. Justice Hood points out, the ship is, by arrange- 
ment, converted into a bond so that the stores cannot law- 
fully be used till the final departure of the ship. 
As has been pointed out by counsel, the legislation pro- 
ceeds on precisely the same lines as section 135 of the 
Imperial Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and under that 
section, if a foreign ship were to take goods so sealed from 
one bonded warehouse in the United Kingdom to another, 
although in the course of her voyage she might go outside 
the territorial limits of the United Kingdom, the very same 
question might arise, and upon her arrival at any other port 
in the United Kingdom the master would undoubtedly, in 
their Lordships’ opinion, be liable to the penalties created 
by that Section. 
For these reasons their Lordships will humbly recommend 
to His Majesty to dismiss this appeal. The appellants must 
pay the costs of it. 
It will be seen from this case that the matter was compli- 
cated by the actual facts. It was perfectly true that the 
seals were brokon while out beyond the three-mile limit, 
but there were obviously two grounds on which the ordinary