Convictions for 16 import breaches

Press, 19 April 1980, Page 4

Convictions for 16 import breaches

A Christchurch importing! company, William Brandt ■ and Company, Ltd, was convicted in the District Courtii yesterday on 16 Customs! Act and Trade and Industry:! Act breaches relating to its', importing of stationery and office equipment from the > Carl Manufacturing Com- , pany, in Japan. ; Judge Palmer, in his re- , served judgment given , yesterday, dismissed a fur- , ther eight charges against. | tho nnmnonu ortH CflifPn

the company, ana seven against a director, Derek William Wade Brandt, of acting with intent to defraud customs in the importing of goods. Evidence and counsels’: submissions in the case were' heard during three days early this month, and the charges were then adjourned to yesterday for decision. Mr D. J. L. Saunders pros-: ecuted for the Customs De-’ partment, and Mr A. A. P. Willy appeared for the defendant company and for, Derek Brandt. Pleas of not: guilty had been entered toj all charges. j The charges which the: Judge held proved yesterday: were adjourned to next Wednesday to enable counsel to make submissions in respect of penalty to be imposed for the offences. The charges related to seven shipments of goods imported by the company, which had obtained the New, Zealand agency for the Japanese company’s prod-i ucts. They involved the alleged evasion of customs’

Iduty, false declaration of the value and quantity of goods imported, and other related i offences. i The imports were made between June, 1976, and January, 1978. j Evidence in the case had. been that in each shipment; the price of the goods was! reduced so that a greater quantity than was authorised; under the licence was imported and the duty paid on the goods was less than it'

should have been. .When interviewed Mr Brandt had freely acknowledged that the price of goods imported from the: Japanese company was al-i itered for the sole purpose of] jimport licensing, but claimed] it had not been done to! evade customs duty. I Derek Brandt had said in| evidence that he had given] •no thought to the fact that., some Customs duties were being evaded, and Mr Willy submitted it was not denied ■that adjustments had been! made in goods imported and] I that in retrospect and upon, !careful calculation this had| •resulted in less customs! duty being paid. However, a scheme had! been devised solely to im-l port goods, against a back-1 ground of attacks being made on the company’s] agency by other New Zea-I land stationers who had; advised the Japanese corn-; many that they had more import licences than the; defendant company could, obtain.

>! The Judge, in his 29-page • written decision, said he] I found in fact and law that the two defendants did contravene certain provisions of lithe Customs Act, but not iwith an intent to defraud l ! the revenue of customs. i He dismissed the eight ]] charges brought against the !‘company, and seven against iDerek Brandt, under section J 243 of the Customs Act reflating to the making of erroneous entries, with intent to defraud.

to aerraua. Charges which he held ’ proved, under sections 21 i and 247 of the Customs Act, ; and section 16C of the Trade fand Industry Act, included ]!representing to a customs : I officer that, invoices from 'Japan were genuine when ): they were falsely stated, 'making erroneous entries of, ijgoods for home con-1 i j sumption. and importing! !igoods totalling $23,027 pro-j i hibited by import control] regulations in that no li-j licence had been granted to ilthe company. I i I