FRENCH SEALSKINS

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 34, 10 February 1922, Page 5

FRENCH SEALSKINS

DECLARED AS jj FIXE OF £-23. Mr 7T W Povntnn. SJtt., ?ave judgI SS B,n»rd ™ making «. «~«~- «"££"£,££ were that on a parcel addressed to defendant w,.= a .Up •"•*e*?, ft 5J origin of portion of the good*. IJ»3 document «, removed by *««>££ and Ids agent declared all the g?°*?*° be of British manufacture. had al*o detached a slip merel ing the nature of the skh*. *?*«** prices or details. It wa* contended by the prosecution that there were two erroneous facts in the declaration, -fte arst as to the description of the goods and the second in stating that these was no other document referring *<>"* goods except the invoice then Section 211 of the Customs Act, IH.U*, reads: -Any poreon who makes any declaration under this Act Vbich. Sβ prronoous in any particular ehall be Ua&tt to a penalty of" £100. ,_-u,j« It was further contended on Denau of the defendant that if there was any error, it was unintentional, and there must be a guilty mind to constitnte en offeirce. "Generally a guilty mind," said the Magistrate. " i> an ingredient m » criminal" offienw, but there are eiceptions, and I think this is one of them. One -vvho prepares a declaration for the use of the customs must know more of th-e nature, origin, and price of tie goo* than the customs officers, or rather, ie is presumed to, and responsibility reet» with him to be accurate in his statements. Were it otherwise the door would be opened to carelessness and frauds <rf all sorts, and if detected the deelarax* would 6inrplv say 'I thought or befiered what I declared to be correct. , Sectioa 212 deals with wilfully false declarations, thu-s drawing a distinction between innocent: and wilfully false declarations." The judgment concluded by eaying tie 6-Kp of paper disclosing the fact that portion of the goods were of foreign manufacture and subject to extra duty, was important. It was known to bofh defendant and his agent. It was in defendant* office at the time the declaration was made, and although ite detachment from the invoice and retentioa apart from it may have been innocent, or due to carelessness, it appeared to I the Magistrate that it was one of those thmgE the Act was intended to prevent. Defendant was fined £25 and ordered to pay costs. Security for appeal wee fixed at £15, plus costs allowed.