Customs and C.E.R. abuses —department replies

Press, 13 February 1987, Page 16

Customs and C.E.R. abuses —department replies

The Customs Department has been accused of over-zealously implementing the Act in relation to alleged abuses of the Closer Economic Relations Agreement The claim, by Paul Hammond in a letter to the Editor, has been responded to by Customs with emphasis on safeguards within the department. Mr Hammond writes:

“On January 22 you published an article on C.E.R. abuse with comments attributed to Mr Brian Ford, Assistant Collector of Customs. The article fails to point out that the Customs Department has been somewhat over-zealous in implementing the act Mr Ford knows that his department has already had the courts judge against his department in one particular case. While his department is appealing this case, another importer has been advised that condemnation proceedings will be dropped if the appeal is unsuccessful. “My own company has been involved in this distasteful businesdtand I object to the overriding connotation of the articllphat

those importers who have had goods seized are guilty of fraud when, in fact, they have proved their innocence to higher authorities than the Assistant Collector of Customs.” Mr Ford replies: “It has, in my opinion, been very well publicised through organisations associated with' the importing community, business publications, but particularly the news media, that New Zealand would honour its importing obligations under the C.E.R. Agreement Importers should, therefore, be aware by now that if they declare goods on entry into New Zealand as Australian origin, when the goods in question are the manufacture of some other country, they will risk having those goods seized. Section 151 of the Customs Act is the authority for this action and the Customs Department is charged with ensuring that the requirements of the Customs Act and these C.E.R. Agreement obligations are met “I acknowledge that on June 25, 1986, judgment was enjyred

against the department in respect of a seizure made under Section 151. An appeal against his decision will be heard in the High Court on February 19, 1987. When the appeal decision is known, the department will then be in a position to take decisions in respect of other such cases which are in the pipeline. No assurances should have been given as indicated by Mr Hammond and I am having this matter looked into.

“I have made it quite clear to the Christchurch media that in most instances with C.E.R. cases, as opposed to other Customs commercial fraud cases which my staff investigate, there normally is not sufficient evidence to prove intent to defraud. The matter is basically one of clerical inefficiency on the part of the exporter or their agent. "Decisions made by officers in this department are subject to careful scrutiny within the organisation and can also be reviewed by the courts. I believe these safeguards should satisfy Mr Hammond’s final inference.”