The Press Thursday, February 10, 1927. The Dumping Duty.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18922, 10 February 1927, Page 8

The Press Thursday, February 10, 1927. The Dumping Duty.

When we e.oked on Friday ln.-t that the Government should tell us fully Bnd frankly the method i: would follow in calculating the dumping duty it mk'lit impose ->n Au-lrniian Hour, we hinted that i: turn "Ut that the duty would n..t he what the plain fanner iniirht expect. Tin: Aeiiu,'-l'riine Minister's .-talenieii: which v.c print tudny >!;->H'.- thai our doubts wen; well founded. -Mr Stewart siy., that the dumping duty will he " the amount by "which the l.'».!i. e.-.pcr; price fit the •• Au-tridian p"r: <•.,' -hipinent is le.-s " than uhii! /.> rojordrd «m tin '• f/n»if>'.';'■: v,i!uiiiiuii." This "' equitable ■•domestic valuation," he say--, i- : Lis le«s than tin: "domr-tic credit price" in Au.-iralia. Thus, if the Sydney home price is £l2 Jo.-, and the f.o.b. price £ll, the dumping duty will not be £1 JO?, hut only 10-. We should like to know hy what authority th" Government uses such phrases as " cquif- " able domestic valuation'' and "do-

•'mestic credit price" in iu(erpretin«r an Act which knows nothing of such refinements of lnngungc. The Act oi' 1021, providing f"r the "dumping "duty,'' empo.ver.s the Minister to impose this duty when the actual selling price to the importer is \ezo than "the "current domestic mine oE such goods " determined in accordance with the " provisions of the principal Act." The principal Act is the Customs Act of 1921, and we cannot find that it contains any provisions for determining " the current domestic value " of any foreign commodity, and still less, of course, the "equitable domestic valua- " tion " or the " domestic credit price," which phrases are inventions of the Customs Department in supersession of statute law. But the principal Act does define the " fair market value " of imported goods, which is described as the value " when sold for cash in the ordin- " ary course of business for home consumption in the principal markets of " the country from which the goods "arc exported." It is possible that under the unlimited power of regulation retained by the Government there may be some authority for the decision now announced by the Government, but Mr Stewart does not mention this; and his statement seems to mean that the Customs Department cau alter the meaning and intention of the law just as it pleases. The Act of 1921, although rather lax in attributing to the Act of 1913 non-existent provisions as to the ascertaining of "current domestic " value," does at any rate refer plainly to "current domestic value," without such embroideries as " equitable domes"tic valuation" and "domestic credit " price," and scctns to give no authority to the Minister to make those deductions amounting to 15s a ton which he intends shall effect a deduction of 15s a ton from the dumping duty whieh would bo lcviablo if tho Act of 1921 were strictly interpreted. The Minister has the power, of course, to refuse to impose any dumping duty at all if ho thinks fit, but if he wishes to exercise his power to impose a duty at all he ought, one might suppose, \to follow the Statute.