False Declarations On Car Imports

Press, Volume C, Issue 29681, 27 November 1961, Page 16

False Declarations On Car Imports

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Nov. 26. The defendants had taken unfair advantage of the noremittance licence scheme, designed to permit owners of overseas funds to buy articles for their personal use, and by making false declarations had flouted the regulations, said Mr W. R. Birks in the Magistrate’s Court on Friday. Charged before Mr J, A. Wicks, S.M., were Cyril William Flighty his wife, Margaret Cosie Flighty, and his brothers, George Alfred Flighty and Ernest Stephen Flighty. They were each charged with making a false declaration under the Customs Act, 1913, and failing to comply with a condition upon which a noremittance import licence was granted, under the Import Control Regulations of 1938. The defendants. who pleaded guilty, were represented by Mr P. K. H. Smyth On the first charge, the defendants were each convicted and fined £5O, and on the second charge, each convicted and fined £lO.

Appearing for the Collector of Customs, Mr Birks said that Cyril William Flighty was the inventor of a machine manufactured in Australia, and from time to time became entitled to royalty payments. The royalties accrued in Australia, and funds accumulated.

In June. 1960, C. W. Flighty applied for a no-remittance licence to Import a station sedan. He submitted a declaration saying that the vehicle was for personal use, and not for business use, and

that the car would not be sold within two years from the date of importation without the permission of the Collector of Customs. At the same time, his wife submitted an application to import a station sedan, and made the same declaration as her husband. The defendant's brother, George Alfred Flighty, also submitted an application for a no-remittance licence to import a station sedan, and made similar declaration. He said that payment would be made by a gift from his brother.

In July, 1960, the fourth defendant, Ernest Stephen Flighty, applied for the importation of a sedan, making the same declaration as the previous defendant.

On July 13. the vehicles for the first three defendants arrived. Thev received them shortly afterwards, but within 10 days, each had sold them without gaining the permission of the Collector of Customs. The vehicle for the fourth defendant arrived on August 30. It was apparently sold on September 30. without permission from the Collector of Customs. “Clearly, all four declarations made in support of the applications for the licences were false. It seems that thia was merely a venture to transfer Australian money to New Zealand, and no doubt at a handsome profit," Mr Birks said.

Mr Smyth said the first defendant C. W. Flighty, was in financial difficulties because of a bad accident. The other defendants entered the scheme to help him out, on the clear assumption that no breach ot the law was involved

Because of the family’s financial trouble, the Magistrate said he would not imWJ* th* maximum fin* of g lOO for conviction on the first charge.