Department’s Offer For Seized Car’s Recovery

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29803, 21 April 1962, Page 18

Department’s Offer For Seized Car’s Recovery

(N.Z. Press Association)

NEW PLYMOUTH, April 20. A New Plymouth man whose car was seized by Customs officers late in March has received an offer for its return from the department <under which he would pay the cost of the car a second time and face the legal expenses of a civil action. The terms of the offer were discussed yesterday by the solicitor acting for Mr R. J. Hopkins.

The solicitor, who also gave details of correspondence with the Minister of Customs (Mr Shelton) and the department since Mr Hopkins’s car was taken from the garage at his Regina Place home, described the seizure as “an action akin to tyranny.

The car, a 1961 Zephyr, was seized on the grounds that it was bought under a noremittance licence and sold before the two-year time limit expired. Mr Hopkins was trie fifth owner of the car and had been assured that it was covenant-free

The solicitor estimated that whatever course was taken Mr Hookins was unlikely to have the car back before October, seven months after the seizure, even thouiri he is an innocent party A letter received by Mr Hopkins from the Comptroller of Customs yesterday said:

“ ... I regret that it has been necessary to take such a drastic step and realise that this will have caused considerable inconvenience to you

“For your part I trust you will appreciate the department has a duty to perform to ensure that the terms and cond’ltions governing the importation of cars obtained under the no-remittance scheme are properly observed

Civil Proceedings

"I presume you have already consulted your solicitor regarding your rights

. . . and will be aware that you can institute civil proceedings against the vendor, coupling as defendants, where necessary, all previous vendors, including the original owner. “The department has also instituted separate proceedings against toe original owner for breaches of the

Customs Act “Until these latter proceedings are completed toe department cannot take any action that would have the effect of terminating the seizure but provision does exist under which the Collector of Customs may, on deposit of a security to a value determined by trie collector, deliver the seized goods to the person from whom the seizure was made.

“The deposit then takes the place of the seized goods in any subsequent legal action “The department is prepared to return the car to you on the deposit of a sum equivalent to toe purchase price (including the value allowed on any trade-in) paid by you to toe vendor. “No Alternative"

“I am sorry there is no alternative course possible as the law is mandatory on this point,” says the letter. “Should the department be successful in the action against the original owner, seizure action may be formally completed This may take some time, however. “It is intended that so far as innocent third parties are concerned the car will be returned to them at a price equivalent to the list price of the car, plus any costs incurred as the result of the seizure action, on presentation of evidence that they have covered tire purchase price paid to toe vendor. “Similarly, where a deposit has been lodged in lieu of the motor-car, repayment of that portion of the deposit above list price, plus costs, will be made.” Minister’s Replies

The correspondence on the seizure goes back to a letter written by the solicitor to Mr Shelton in \fnich tfre solicitor suggested a course leading to the abandonment of the seizure, and return of the car to Mr Hopkins, leaving the department free to proceed against the original owners.

Mr Shelton acknowledged the letter on April 9. said he would consider the points raised and write again as soon as possible. No further reply has been received from him.

In a second letter to Mr Shelton, the solicitor expressed surprise that no decision had been received “particularly in view of the fact that at the time you were in a position to make a public statement indicating the cars seized from innocent purchasers were to be returned." The letter added: “We are now instructed to point out

to you that as a matter of law the seizure of our client's car may well be unlawful

“If the seizure were unlawful. our client will, of course, be entitled to claim damages from the Crown for conversion."

The letter offered, without prejudice, not to pursue any claim for damages if the car was returned by today. "Harsh Suggestion”

To yesterday’s letter from the Comptroller of Customs, the solicitor has replied: “The suggestions made in the Comptroller’s letter sre not only quite impracticable to be followed but in our view are also completely harsh and unreasonable ” The letter made these points:— (1) Mr Hopkins* simply could not deposit the purchase price or make any arrangements for a bond in place of a deposit. (2' The question of law referred to earlier was a substantial one and it was thought any decision of a Magistrate’s Court on prosecution was bound to go to appeal either to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal

(3) It was quite useless Mr Hopkins commencing any action against the vendor until the legal point was clarified. The solicitor claimed the Comptroller was wrong in suggesting that the car could not be returned without a deposit while a prosecution was pending Act’s Provisions

A section of the act, the letter claimed, made it clear the power of forfeiture was merely an additional power “No consideration whatever appears to have been given to the effect on innocent purchasers such as Mr Hopkins.” he said "He is placed in a situation where a car bought in good faith is taken from him without notice or warning and is then told that if he deposits the cost of the car and if he takes proceedings against a vendor who also may have acted in good faith, the car will in the end be sold to him. "We are quite unable to see how this treatment of an innocent purchaser can in any way be justified, particularly in view of the fact that in our view, the Customs Act provides such ample penalty against any true offender.”

The solicitor also claims that the Customs Act clearly gives the Governor-General power to waive the seizure and he believes that should have been done in Mr Hopkins’s case.