Decision reserved in customs prosecution

Press, 4 June 1988, Page 7

Decision reserved in customs prosecution

Judge Noble acknowledged the complexity of a customs prosecution brought against a Christchurch businessman, Kevin Francis Meates, as the case came to a close in the District Court yesterday.

After hearing final submissions by Mr David Saunders for the Customs Department, and by Mr Barrie Atkinson, Q.C., for Meates, the Judge adjourned the case until August 5. He hoped to be able to deliver a decision then, but indicated he might have to reserve decision further. The hearing had adjourned part-heard last November and was completed during five days this week. Meates, a former All Black, denied five charges brough under the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act relating to the importation in 1984 of “burger buggie” toys for the McDonald’s hamburger chain. It was alleged he had asked overseas suppliers to provide false invoices, and had evaded customs duty and sales tax totalling $51,258.

Meates was charged with conspiring with two people in Hong Kong to import toy components declared on false documentation; as a director of Julius Harper, Ltd, consenting to the production of customs of false documents in which the value of the goods was undervalued; and consenting to the production of a false invoice in which the goods were undervalued, thereby evading duty.

Two alternative charges, laid under the Sales Tax Act, alleged that he conspired to import goods on false documentation, and as a director of Julius Harper imported goods on false documentation, thereby evading sales tax of $36,207. The toys were imported as parts to be assembled in New Zealand, and came in three shipments, to Julius Harper and to two other firms. The defence has maintained that that was done because one of the firms had the necessary import licence and the other was a licensed wholesaler. The final witness was

Brian Meates, of Wellington, who completed evidence under crossexamination yesterday. He denied that Julius Harper held sufficient import licence itself to import the goods, and that the firm went to great lengths to have the shipments arrive at different ports to avoid customs examination. In his final submissions, Mr Saunders said that he believed the defence was not seriously questioning that the documentation on the toys’ value was false, but it came to a question of intent: whether Meates knew of a telex to the Hong Kong supplier, Petrine, requesting the undervaluation. Traversing the complex evidence about the import licensing, Mr Saunders said that the reason the goods came to be split into three shipments also came down to a question of credibility, and whether the motive was evasion of duty. The department’s contention was that Meates used licensed wholesalers to import most of the goods, because, as wholesalers, they did not have

to pay sales tax on customs clearance. Mr Atkinson said in his final submission that that moved liability further down the chain, actually increasing the amount of tax payable. If the department was correct about who the retailer was, Julius Harper incurred sales tax rather than evaded it. If it was wrong, Julius Harper did not evade it as it was not liable, he said. The sales tax charges must therefore fail, he submitted. Of the other charges, Mr Atkinson said that certain documents presented as exhibits were palpably false, but Meates’s responsibility was “not only not proved beyond a reasonable doubt — it is not even established as a reasonable possibility.” Mr Atkinson said that the only time Meates specified prices, he got them right, and he was not the author of exhibit 37, a telex to the Hong Kong suppliers. He further submitted that the evidence of one Hong Kong witness was “demonstrably wrong, to put it at its most charitable?’ '