Chch importer fined $11,950

Press, 11 August 1979, Page 4

Chch importer fined $11,950

Fines totalling $11,950, and Court costs of $370 were imposed on a Christchurch importing company and wholesaler, N. H. Finney and Company, Ltd, when it was sentenced by Mr N. L. Bradford. SAL, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on 37 charges involving evasion of customs duty, import licence evasion, and Sales Tax Act breaches.

The maximum penalties which could have been imposed for the offences would have amounted to $221,383. However, the Magistrate took into account in fixing the fines that the Customs Department could take steps to recover the $5853.12 in customs duty and $8324.38 in sales tax evaded by the company.

The company was found guilty of the offences last month. Evidence in the use was heard on June 6.

The company had pleaded guilty to seven charges relating to the importation of 1150 presentation watch boxes and to eight sales tax offences, but denied the other charges. Four other charges of cus-toms-duty evasion relating to the importation of 105 dozen watch straps had been dismissed.

Mr D. J. L. Saunders represented the Customs Department at the hearings, and the company was represented by Mr D. H. Hicks. In submissions yesterday Mr Hicks said the prosecution had produced a schedule, showing the maximum fines which could be imposed, as nearly a quarter million dollars. However, putting these “in perspective,” there was an element of duplication in a number of the charges.

He also said that Mr Noel Finney, a principal of the firm, had died before the proceedings were heard. Although Mr Finney was not directly the company, and other proceedings against him personally were abandoned after his death, the company was paying the penalty for whatever he may or may not have thought at the time regarding the legality of his actions. The company had arranged before the proceed-

ings began, to pay the arrears of sales tax, Mr Hicks said. Although it had been found that there had been an intention to defraud, Mr Hicks submitted that there was a large element of interpretation of the customs tariffs, “on which there may be more than one point of view.” Mr Saunders said it was accepted that there was some duplication in thq charges regarding the camera lenses, which had been necessary to ensure which offences would be established. He also conceded that the maximum penalties were larger than needed to apply in this case. However, in each case the goods had not been subject to forfeiture, and the company thus gained the advantage of selling them — although duty claims were now pending. The sales tax offences were a deliberate attempt to evade this tax and obtain monetary advantage. The Magistrate said th* defendant company must act by its officers and the evidence in the case showed that it had acted through Mr Noel Finney, who had since died. He said a total of $14,177.50 had been evaded in sales tax and customs duty. Although some duplication in the charges had been mentioned, this was a systematic episode. The company’s practice of using one invoice for its customs entry and a different invoice for the importer, was one which had continued for some years — from 1973 to 1976.

The offences had also secured a trading advantage for the company in its being able to sell the goods at a more competitive price.