DUMPING DUTY ON FLOUR.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18926, 15 February 1927, Page 8

DUMPING DUTY ON FLOUR.

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM. REASONS FOR 7/6 REDUCTION tPMSB AOOCUTIOH TItEOBAM.) WELLINGTON, February 14.

The Minister for Customs (the Hon. Mr Downie Stewart], to-day issued the following statement:— The Government has been criticised on the one hand for imposing any dumping duty on flour, and on the other* hand for not imposing a sufficiently high dumping duty. The statutory' provisions regarding the high pjivers of the -Minister for Customs in respect of the dumping duty have been represented as requiring a dumping duty of £1 10s per ton. when the Australian domestic credit price is £l2 10s and the f.o.b. export price £ll. The fact has been ignored that although the nominal domestic vulue is £l2 10s, and the actual cash price charged to the large domestic purchasers only £l2 2s 6d, on allowance of 7s 6d per ton beinc obtainable for prompt payment and large orders, the further 7s 6d which is oeing allowed in calculating the dumping duty has been already explained as being due to the saving in handling the export orders as compared with domestic transactions. So far as the statutory authority for such a deduction is concerned, it seems to be quite covered by the terms of Section 11 of the Customs Amendment Act, 1921, which provides that "'the dumping duty shall be an amount to be determined -by the Minister, not exceeding the difference between the actual selling price of the goods and the current domestic value of such goods." Briefly, the law expects the Minister, in exercisine his powers, to aot on an equitable and fair consideration, and epuitable and fair consideration, and that no dumping duty beyond the amount of any unfair price reduction m'ven for export will be levied in imposing these duties, which are penal in thei nature, the Minister must necessnrilv act in accordance with a fair and liberal interpretation of the law. If the Government were to do what is beine demanded in Canterbury, it would he merely trickery nnd not a fair interpretation of the Customs Act.