EXCHANGE DUMPING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 151, 29 June 1931, Page 9

EXCHANGE DUMPING.

DUTY AGAINST AUSTRALIA. CUSTOMS INTERFERENCE. FEELING AMONG IMPORTERS. The advisability of taking joint legal action against the Customs Department in connection with its handling 01 the exchange dumping duty against Australia, is to be discussed at a meeting of importers to be held at the Chamber of Commerce on Monday next. It is understood that several trading concerns in Auckland have already secured legal advice on the subject, and this . that the Customs Department is taking a wrong interpretation ot sect,oirll of the Customs Amendment Act, L«i. c£na I 6 of Auckland Chamber of Commence, Mr. A. M. Seaman, pototed oti that general dissatisfaction fisted among members of the counci at the of deposits on goods imported Sriustralia, equal to 13 per een pf the current domestic he Commonwealth, by way of excLang; rlumpin* duty. It was doubted whetnei tfiHLi any legislative authority for such an exaction, and the concensus of elal opinion that the council had been able to secure pointed in the direction that the exactions- involved an -.induiy strained interpretation of the Customs Amendment Act. It was suggested that it was desirable that, if an exchange dumping duty against.Australian. goods was deemed necessary—and the council admitted that it. might be necessary in certain cases—the necessary definite legislative authority should be ftecured to meet the position, rather than that reliance should be placed upon dubious legislative. authority. - As an instance of the very numerous cases where no ground at all of an economic nature could be adduced for the exaction of a deposit, Mr. Seaman mentioned one case.Which recently -.'ame ;to the chamber's notice. Rice was imported from Burma, and on entering into Australia had to pay approximately 30 per cent extra on account of the adverse exchange operating against Australia. These-goods, after processing,..were reexported -to. New. Zealand,, and, -despite^

n-otests, the Customs Department insisted on a deposit, although it must iiave been quite clear that, in the case Df this particular transaction, the Australian processor was obtaining no eronomic advantage which might justify an exchange dumping duty. Parliament, added Mr. Seaman, had decreed that pollard, like rice, should be admitted free of duty, but here again the Customs Department had apparently decided that a full deposit should be exacted, despite the fact that many of the costs involved in producing pollard in Australia had now risen in sympathy with the adverse exchange situation, thus removing to a large extent any economic justification that might temporarily have been adduced for an exchange dumping duty. In conclusion, Mr. Seaman urged that the Prime Minister should give the question immediate consideration, as considerable feeling existed among importers from Australia.