Sold No-Remittance Car To Help Finance House

Press, Volume C, Issue 29696, 14 December 1961, Page 11

Sold No-Remittance Car To Help Finance House

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Dec. 13. Pleading guilty to a charge of failing to comply with a condition upon which he had been granted a no-remittance licence, William Gordon Harker, a rubber worker, of Heretaunga, was convicted and fined £7 10s and costs by Mr J. F. Keane, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Upper Hutt today. A charge of making a false declaration also preferred against Harker was withdrawn on the application of Mr J. D. Murray, who appeared for the Collector of Customs. Harker was represented by Mr H. M. Ward. In June, 1960. Harker applied for a no-remittance licence to import a car, and in doing so made a declaration that it would be for family use and would not be sold within two years without the permission of the Collector of Customs, Mr Murray said. The licence was issued incorporating the condition and Harker took delivery of a car worth £775. In November, 1960, he sold it for £925, making a £l7O profit. In a subsequent letter to

the Customs Department, Harker said he had been given £3OO by his mother in England, and as he had not anticipated building a home he decided to buy a car with the intention of touring the North Island during the 1960 Christmas holidays. It was then discovered that his wife was expecting a baby and he decided to get a home, selling the car to assist with the building finance. He did not seek permission to do so, and had he applied, it would have been granted had the sale price not exceeded the list price, Mr Murray said. Harker had had a duty to seek permission to sell the car, and was not entitled to make a profit under the sale. The selling of the vehicle, Mr Ward said, was the only way for Harker to provide a home, and was not a case of a person importing a car as a device for making quick money by defeating the customs regulations. All the money had gone towards the building costs. The Magistrate said that in view of the circumstances the imposing of the maximum penalty of £lO was not justified.