No car forfeiture

Press, 19 July 1983, Page 6

No car forfeiture

A Christchurch clerk will not have to forfeit to the Crown a car, said to be worth about $20,000 in New Zealand, and which was seized by the Customs Department after he returned to Christchurch from the United States last year.

In a reserved oral judgment given yesterday Judge Fogarty dismissed three charges against Ivan Robert Wright, aged 29. They alleged breaches of the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act in his importation of a 1977 Pontiac Trans Am Thunderbird car. A conviction on the charges would have meant mandatory forfeiture of the vehicle to the Crown. Evidence in the case was heard during three days this month. Mr D. J. L. Saunders prosecuted for the Customs Department, and Mr L. M. O’Reilly appeared for the defendant. The defendant was alleged to have tried to bring the car into New Zealand last year by declaring a purchase date in 1979 nine days earlier than the true purchase date, to circum-

vent restrictions introduced in the Government’s Budget of June 21, 1979. The Budget of 1979 cancelled a provision in the Customs Act which previously applied, allowing returning New Zealanders to import motor-vehicles duty free if they had been owned and used in the 21 months before importation. The charges were that the defendant, on or about September 27 last year, evaded payment of $5920 in sales tax by producing to a customs officer a false statement of facts dated April 27, 1980, which showed that he had taken delivery of the car in San Diego on June 19, 1979, when the true date of possession was June 28, 1979; a similar charge in relation to producing a false statement of facts to evade customs duty of $1656; and a charge of producing as genuine a false statement of facts to an officer of customs, in that the date of purchase of the car was June 28, and not June 19, 1979. The department contended that the vehicle was not delivered to the defendant until after the paper

work was completed on June 28, 1979. Defence evidence was given that the defendant had been supplied with the car on June 19, 1979. A certificate signed on April 27, 1980, by a salesman of the car firm verified that the date of purchase was June 19, 1979. The defendant said he understood that the verbal contract to purchase was binding. There had been delays in having repairs completed, and pollution testing of the vehicle for a certificate. He delayed signing the contract as it gave him more time to obtain the money for the hire-purchase payment. After taking the evidence the Judge said he was reluctant to rely solely on the evidence of the defendant. The evidence of the defendant’s brother indicated that, on the balance of probabilities, delivery of the vehicle was taken on June 19, 1979. He was not prepared, therefore, to hold that the salesman’s statement of April 27, 1980, was false, and the charges were dismissed. ,