AD VALOREM DUTIES AND WAX VESTAS.

Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 148, 6 November 1886, Page 2

AD VALOREM DUTIES AND WAX VESTAS.

?- A somewhat interesting and curious case relating to commercial and customs law is likely to come before the Supreme Court shortly, in which Messrs. Hayman and Co. , the i well-known importers.will ohallenge the right ! of tho Commissioner of Customs to charge ad valorem duties on a higher value than ; has actually been paid for goods, as proved ' by bonaUde invoices. The firm in question, it seems, dosires to introduce Messrs. Bryant and May's wax vestas into New Zealand, and has entered into a contract with the I makers to take an annual supply of some < 10,000 oases. The brand is practically un- < known in this colony, whore Bell and Black's j and Bell and Co.'b matches are in large de- ( mand. Whether from tho magnitude of the 1 order, or a desire to make a sacrifice in order i to open up a now market, Messrs. Bryant ] and May have invoiced their matches to 1 Messrs. P. Hayman and Co. at a. price s considerably below tho figure charged for t small parcols or by other rival manufac- i turers. The duty on vestas is 25 per cent, t ad valorem, and tho importers claim that c this duty must be calculated on the actual ] invoice prices, there boing no doubt of the \ genuineness of the invoices, which is proved c by statutory declarations and in other ways, f The Customs authorities refuse to accept I the invoices as a basis of value, and putting ? asjde the price whioh Messrs. P. Hayman a and Co. hare Paid, ineiut on charging the o

25 per cent, duty on the value of other similar goods imported by other housea from other manufacturers or in ainall parcels. Tho subject was brought before Parliament in August last by means of a question put by Mr. J. C. Brown, who maintained that as Bryant and May's matches wore retailed in the colony at the same price aB those of other makers, they should be charged the same duty, irrespective of original cost. Sir Julius Vogel, as Commissioner of Customs, coincided in this view, and in his reply stated that Messrs. Hayman and Co. were trying to secure a monopoly, and by buying cheaply at homelo secure an enormous profit. He said the Customs Act interpreted the value on which the ad valorem duty was to be charged as " the fair market valueof the goods in the usual and common acceptation of the term at the usual and ordinary credit, and not the cash value of the goods in the principal markets of the country whence the goods were imported." Ihis he contended was necessary to protect the revenue. In one case where the matches had been seized and sold they realised 45 per cent, over the invoice price. We confess we cannot quite follow Sir Julius Vogel's reasoning in this matter, as it seems manifestly unfair that the wholesale purctasar for cash should have to pay an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent., not on the real value of the goods, but upon the charges which tho sellers have to add to thenet value when they sell in small quantities or upon credit. It is charging duty upon the commission imposed for a credit the cash purchaser does not reqnire or use. Why the Customs should handicap him down to the level of the small importer who buyß on credit we cannot quite see. Such a system appears to us inconsistent with the real intent of an ad valorem duty. If all wax vestas are to be liable to the same duty without regard to manufacturers' prices, then they should be taken out of the ad valorem list and made subject to a _ fixed duty of so muoh per 1000. In his reply in the House, the Commissioner of Customs offered to meet the importers and try the case in a Court of law if they wished it, and we learn that the invitation has been accepted, and that the Supremo Court will soon be called on to interpret the Act in relation to the point at issue. The question is one of considerable interest to importers.