Policeman convicted on customs counts

Press, 30 May 1981, Page 4

Policeman convicted on customs counts

A, Greymouth police sergeant in the District Court in Christchurch yesterday was convicted of two Customs Act breaches relating to his bringing into New Zealand on his return from an Australian trip a large quantity of goods on which total duty amounting to $591 was said to have been evaded. The defendant was Wayne Leslie Ford, aged 29.

He was fined $l5O on each of two charges. On two other charges of making erroneous customs declarations in respect of the goods. Judge Frampton found these offences proved, but the charges were withdrawn by Mr D. J. L. Saunders, who prosecuted for the Customs Department, upon the defendant's conviction on the others.

The case was resumed yesterday after prosecution

evidence had been part-heard on Mav 8.

Mr J. Cadenhead appeared for the defendant.

The prosecution case was concluded yesterday, with evidence given that "the duty and sales tax evaded by the goods not being declared at their correct value was estimated at $591. The defendant had told customs officers he believed that the goods which were brought in as gifts did not have to be declared, and that he understood tfrom reading a customs brochure from the Greymouth office that the manufacturer's value of goods, and not the purchase price, had to be declared on the customs forms.

In accordance yesterday the defendant recounted events on his return to Christchurch from Australia and his being interviewed by customs officers relating to

the items he sought to bring into New Zealand.

He affirmed the prosecution evidence that it had been his belief that the manufacturer's price was the value for declaration purposes, and that he did not have to declare gifts received overseas.

In his decision the Judge said the instructions on the passengers’ declaration form were quite clear and unambiguous. and these stated that the total purchase price should be given. He said he was also not satisfied that gifts were made to the defendant and his wife in form and manner deposed to by the defendant. He said in relation to the erroneous declaration •charges that he found these charges proved, bearing in mind the extent to which his declaration of goods was under-stated, and the amount of duty evaded.