Migrant has car importation fines reduced

Press, 22 October 1983, Page 4

Migrant has car importation fines reduced

A Dutch migrant who suffered mandatory forfeiture of a car he brought to New Zealand, and fines totalling $lOOO for Cutoms tax and sales tax evasion, had the fines reduced in a rehearing of the case in the District Cout yesterday. Judge Bradford yesterday granted Johannes Gerardus Lentjes, a boilermaker, a rehearing in respect to the sentence imposed.

At the original hearing in May, Lentjes had been fined $750 for attempting to evade $2404 in sales tax, when he imported the car, and $250 for attempting to evade $9BO in Customs duty. He had pleaded guilty to both charges and these pleas were maintained yesterday.

The Judge yesterday substituted fines of $250 and $5O.

At yesterday’s hearing, Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Customs Department and Mr J. J. Brandts-Giesen for Lentjes. At the original hearing Lentjes was not represented by counsel. Mr Saunders said that, at that hearing, Lentjes had some difficulty in explaining himself and the Court had difficulty obtaining information from him about the importation.

In submissions for a review of the penalties, Mr Brandts-Giesen said that Lentjes and his wife had applied to emigrate to New Zealand but had “given up

hope” and had purchased a Mazda car in Holland for the equivalent of SNZBSOO. Some months later they had “unexpectedly” heard from New Zealand authorities in The Hague that they had been accepted as immigrants. Mr Brandts-Giesen said that Lentjes stood to lose substantially on the car because of depreciation, and decided to bring the car to New Zealand. He inquired from New Zealand authorities in The Hague about procedures for importation but they did not know and told him to see customs authorities in London.

The English authorities gave him information relating to importation to Australia. He paid $3500 to ship the 'car to New Zealand. There had been no attempt at that stage to defraud Customs. Lentjes admitted to deliberately forging the declaration papers by changing the date of ownership, when he learned that the cat should have been owned by him for a full year before importation to avoid duties. This had been a “panic reaction” by Lentjes after the car arrived in New Zealand and at the illadvised suggestion of relatives. The car was forfeited upon his conviction, and he had lost more than $12,000

Mr Brandts-Giesen said Lentjes had been the victim of the situation in which New Zealand offices and posts overseas were not properly informed on immigration matters.

He had an unblemished record before then — he would not have been accepted as an immigrant without it — and he had established a good work record since his arrival, and had shown himself to be a worthwhile citizen.

The Judge said that, through the benefit of experienced counsel to clearly and concisely put the situation, he now took a different view of the situation from when Lentjes first appeared on the charges. Because of the rapid deterioration in value of cars on the large European market, one could imagine the reasoning behind Lentjes’s decision to bring his car to New Zealand, said the Judge.

Lentjes had attempted to evade $3384 in duty and sales tax by altering the invoice.

Taking into account Lentjes’s motivation and situation, lesser penalties could be imposed. “Quite Draconian” penalties were provided and the losses Lentjes had suffered, including forfeiture of his car, had already fulfilled the deterrent aspect, he said.