DUTY ON WHISKY

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 224, 9 June 1923, Page 5

DUTY ON WHISKY

REFUND REFUSED “AN ANOMALOUS POSITION” The claim of a Dunedin firm of merchants for a refund of duty of 365. per gallon paid on whisky brought on a steamer which reached the Dominion on November 2, 1921, on the ground that the whisky was “imported” on that date, and therefore subject to a duty of only 18s. per gallon, because section 143 of the Act of 1913 applied, was rejected by the reserved judgment of, His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), entered in the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The case was that of Powley and another a Dunedin firm of merchants, v. the King, and at the hearing Mr. M. Myers, K.C., and with, him Mr. Len. appeared for the appellants and the Solicitor-General for the Grown. , The duty on 331 gallons of whisky was paid by the appellants on December 2. 1921. It was imposed by a resolution of the House of Representatives, that all duties of Customs and all exemptions of such duties specified in certain schedules be abolished, and that, “notwithstanding anything section 143 of the Customs Act, 1913, there shall be levied, collected,. and paid to and for the use of IDs Majesty on all goods specified in the first schedule. and imported into New Zealand after the third day of November. IIMI, or entered for home consumption after that date, the duties of Customs (it any) mentioned in column No. 1 or column No. 3 (as the case may refluire) of the said schedule.*’ His Honour noted that the Customs Act of 1913 completely legalised any such resolution, and prevented persons taking action against the Crown <m grounds that would be insufficient in “This whisky reached New Zealand by the Matakana on November A 1921,” he said. “The vessel on that date anchored, in the port of Auckland, and it was contended that therefore on that date this whiskv was iteported.’ under section 44 of the Customs Act .... having been brought into a bay, gulf, river, or other water comprised within the territorial limits of New Zealand, or the whole of the waters comprised in any port of Mew Zealand. ... The contention is that section 143 of the Customs Act applies .... which states that. ■ln the case of any a . l , t V.^ + ion ’? law relating to the of any goods to duty . . . . the liability shall be determined . • • • law in force at the time of importation or by the law in force at the time at which the goods are. thereafter enteied for home consumption, whichever the most favourable for the lin The resolution was ratified by section 24 of the Customs Amendment Act, 19 “Seeing’ that at the time of entry and payment of duties the law was that 365. per gallon was payable as duty, can the claimants ask for a cause when the goods were imported the duty payable was 18s./ . . • What is the true interpretation of tne resolution P Does it permit the provisions of section 143 to be relied on P It has to be noted that on November 3 and right up to the passing of the Amending Act on December 22, 1921, the only Customs duties chargeable on spirits was that provided for m the resolution, and it is said, inter alia that: ‘Notwithstanding anything. m section 143 of the Customs Act. 1913, the duty was to be 86s. • ■ • . “The duties mentioned must oe paid. Similar words have long ago been construed. In the reign °f Queen Elisabeth there appeared these words in a statute: ‘Anything contained in the Act shall be no impediment to it.’ And in another instance there appeared in a statute: As if tne Act had not been made. And it was held that these words rendered void the provisions referred to. . ■ • of this resolution are to rule notwithstanding anything in section 143 or the Customs Act, .1913.’ . “These words, in .my opinion, prevent the claimants from invoking the aid of sub-section (b) of section 143. It may be an anomalous position in which the claimants are placed. If the goods had not reached Dunedin till after December 22 and had then been entered, the claimants might have relied on sub-section 2 of section 143, but between November 3 and December 22 section 143 was, in my opinion, not in’ operaton, and consequently the clamants’ claim must fail. Costs were allowed ths Crown, according to scale, with disbursements.