DUTY ON WHEAT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 82, 17 January 1928, Page 7

DUTY ON WHEAT

AUCKLAND COMPLAINTS.

AUCKLAND, January 16. Anomalies in the working of the tariff on wheat from Australia were discussed at a meeting of the Auckland Grain and Produce Merchants’’ Association. Millers and grain-brokers, and representatives of the Chamber of Com-

merce were also present. All' W. H. Prentis, who presided, said that when tariff revision was adopted, a sliding scale was put on to represent that Australian wheat should always cost 7s 9d landed in New Zealand. At. first it did cost 7s 9d, but since then a very different interpretation had come in, and instead of wheat costing them 7s 9d it cost 7s lOd and up to 8s 2d. If they bought wheat j costing, say, 5s 9d, f.0.b., the tariff would be Is and freight Is, making 7s 9d. At the time of shipment, probably the market might have dropped down to 5s 6d, and on the sliding scale they would have to pay an extra 3d a brash el duty. . i Tn reply to a question as to how the Customs officials arrived at their estimate of the value, several members said they got it from Australian newspapers. One member said lie had wheat for which be paid 5s lid assessed at 5s sd, and another had had wheat costing 6s Id assessed at 5s Bd. The Cus-I toms would not accept the value as declared by shippers. It was unanimously decided to ask the Comptroller of Customs to accept j the f.o.b. invoice price as current domestie value.

Messrs W. Pratt and C. McCullough were appointed to represent the views of the Association to the Comptroller in Wellington.

DOMINION AND COMMONWEALTH. RELATIONS NOT DISTURBED. AUCKLAND, January 16. A denial that the harmony of commercial relations between Australia and New Zealand had been disturbed by the Dominion imposing additional protective duties on wheat and Hour without requisite notice was given by the Hon. O. J. Hawken (Minister of Agriculture) at Kaitaia. As a matter of fact, he said, the assumption that the New Zealand Governmenut had failed to give six months’ notice of its intention, as stipulated by the 1922 trade treaty, was quite wrong. “Australia and New Zealand quite understood each other in the matter of the increase in the protective duties on wheat and flour,” he said. “Notice of the increase was admittedly not given formally, nor was the exact amount of it stated to the Commonwealth Government half a year before its imposition. That would have been impossible, since the duty was based on a sliding scale, and we ourselves did not know until the last minute exactly what it would he. Australia appreciated that, and having been warned that some increase was coming, recognised that treaty obligations w~ere being observed. That that was the case is proved by the fact that Australia is not/ imposing her extra duty on butter until six months have elapsed from the time of the decision to do so. Certainly the Commonwealth agrees that New Zealand has acted fairly and honoured the treaty.” Mr Hawken added that in view of Australia’s present policy of high protective tariffs it is difficult for New Zealand to negotiate any satisfactory agreement.