LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1244, 28 September 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. CUSTOMS TEST CASE. SCM SMALL, BVT I'KINCIVLE IMPORTANT FOR MERCHANT*. Two important questions of principle wero involved in a special case stated lor hearing before the Chief Justice (.-"r Robert Stout) yesterday afternoon.

The first question was whe her if e price of goods advanced, between the lime at which they were purchased in England and the time at. which t-liev were actually shipped from there lo 'Soie Zealand, the duly payable on such was to bo assessed on the invoice value, or on the value as at tlie advanced price? The second point was whether the t,u»toms authorities, having assessed ami collected duty on goods cleared at the invoice value, wero entitled to maKo a further assessment of duty in respect of such goods?

The- parties, to tho action were tho Minister for Customs, plaintiff, and Ross and Glondining, Ltd., warehousemen, of Wellington, defendants. The Solicitor-Gen-eral (Mr. 3. W. Salmond) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin Chapman, K.G., with him Mr. 1\ I'. Kelly, for Ecss and .Glondimng-. , It appeared that, on or about lebruary 3, 1910, the firm gave an order to Michael Nairn and Co., London, for certain linoleums, the prices to be according to quotations in force at tho time at which the or<!or was Riven. Michael Nairn and Co., Ltd., dtilv shipped the goods _by K M S lonic, which left London for New ZcMiutl ei June •-'!, 1910, the total m\oice o being .£s(l 1!!?. The lonic armed in Wellington early in August, and on \ugnst 10 the goods were cleared and de!noie 1 to Hoss and Glendining, Ltd. aflei lliej had made payment of the ad valorem 'duty on the invoice value. It had, however, happened that about May 11. 1!)I0, the price of linoleums, of the'quality and description imported, had advanced 10 i;er cent, in the principal markets of England, and such advance had continued until tho date of shipment, viz., June 21, 1910. The Custom*, however, had not been aware of this until September '2, but as soon as they did become awaro of it they claimed from Ross and 'Glendining, Ltd., additional duty amounting t.i £1 Bs. Bd. The defendant company ''Ross and Glendining, Ltd.) contended that no additional duty was payable, a.s the duty, within the meaning of' tho Act, was to ho assessed on tho pricc> obtaining at the time of purchase, and that the Customs authorities, having duty at the invoice value, and the defendant company having cleared the geods and paid the duty in tho lionet belief that it was carreer, and having said the goals, (lie Customs authorities were not then entitled l> make a further assessment. After hearing argument, his Honour reserved decision..