DUTY ON MACHINERY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 73, 19 December 1907, Page 8

DUTY ON MACHINERY.

AN-IMPORTA>[T JUDGiVIENTv' (BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) ,■';■■'-. ■'.. •'•' -Auckland,: December 18. v k case 'of considerable" interest "to gold jnining.'companies' came on in'the Supreme Court to ; day when the Waihi Gold Mining Company proceeded under the Customs Laws .Consolidation Act, 1882, against the Collec-. tor of ''Customs:.'-'. The , 'question which His Honour was "asked'to determine was" whether certain' articles"'imported by the 'plaintiff company "are liable :: to : any, and if so what, duty. '.'■ The- articles in dispute.'. comprised shafting, couplings, pedestals, wrought iron belt, pulley and clutch-..for driving the: tube mills'by a gasVeiigine.. .In opening "the.:case Jor : the* plaintiff' Mr. , ' Cotter -said '.the de-fendant-claimed that.the' machinery was liable-;to-a duty of'2o per cent, ad valorem •within ' the- '.meaning . :of'■ the 'expression. "Manufactures not ot.heiwiseVenumerated. Mr. Cotter quoted authorities in which mining machinery-was .defined "as- "all mechanical appliances-of whatever/ kind...used for mining purposes.'.'/'. Mining.;purppsos; : .he- contended,. meant mining fprgold-.arid.a-ny.;.other metal or mineral,:and included■ stacking, storing,.and treatment i of any . substance, .supposed:' to cgntain. v/gold or any-.;. other" \ metal, or mineral. • .Thojqii.estion. tfor.. His •Honour to decide was,whether the' articles/in :questi6n were.-mining ma'chine>yJf.;Tlie other 'side' might contend, that jt,was not machinery at all, Mr.. Tole,,invreply to-His , Honour," contended that-it. was Vnot, machinery.^at:all in. any sense for effecting any complete •■purpose'., Ho submitted ,-that !it was only a mechanical applianee'for transmitting power. They were parts of machinery'that .could he applied to any other industry. They; wished to confine the exemption of duty under" tne Act to which was-.purelyl applicable to. the-extraction of gold. The gas engine -was the:power and the connecting shaft was 'the intermediating power. After-lengthy legal .argument- His Honour held:_that plaintiff- wastentitled 'to' succeed,', and 'in-' His. HonquHs opinion no' , duty was payable.in respectiof the articles'mentioned in>the statement of claim. The jiidgment'of the Court.was that the Government refund the deposit, with interest' , at 8 per cent.,'and costson the lowest : scale. - -,- ; .:. . -