THE CUSTOMS DUTY ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 10212, 14 January 1897, Page 2

THE CUSTOMS DUTY ACT.

Patrick Leilh Hitchis, importer, was .charged at the Police Court this morning, before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M., with entering nine bales of starch wrapptoff paper as tabic bales of cartridge paper for drawing bqnfcs, the said nine bales of starch writing paper being subject to & higher rate ot duty than goods of We denomination by Which the packages were entered. Mr W. 0.,. MacGregor appeared for iocused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr B. C. Haggitt, who cOttdtt&ted',the case for the Customs - Department, after ijuoting the section of the Act dealing With the case, said that some, time before the goods arrived iu the colony, or before the entry was passed, defendant, in company with another man, called on the Collector of Customs and spoke about certain goods which they stated ptihtibjjr paper 1 , but had been wrongly invoiced & Starch wrapping paper. They Vri<_uirea as to what the duty Would bb\ and were told that if the paper Mre printing paper there would ft u'd duty chargeable, but it" it were Etaroh paper it would be subject to a duty of 5a per cwt. They were referred by Mr Chamberlain to Mr Prain, who was the proper officer, and who had samples of all kinds of paper, and if they would indicate frottt the, samples what was the paper they Were ekpeoting Mr Prain would atonce tell theft what duty, if any, was chargeable on it. They went to Mr Prai»i but did not ask to fete 'any samples. They djescrib'e'd VWi paper they were expecting, and the gentleman who was With defendant asserted that the invoice was wrong \ that the paper they were expecting .Was not starch wrapping paper-but was printhg paper. Mr Prain ?a\d ii i at were so and if they were quite certain the paper was Srinting paper there would be no duty, fothing more was heard of the matter until December 2, wheu Mr Ritchie passed an entry for paper* in the usual Way, and in the entry the goods Were described as nice bales of cartridge paper for drawing book?. The entry was admitted by the defence. At the time when the goods were entered an invoice which described the goods as starch wrapping paper was produced. The Customs officer said he would have to examine the goods, and he reported the matter to the landing surveyor. The bales were opened the following day, in the presence of the man who had previously been with Mr Ritchie, and who was also a partner in the Caxton Printing Company. The goods were found to be as invoiced—namely, Btarch wrapping paper—and not as 'specified in the entry—namely, printing paper, or cartridge paper for drawing books. The goods were detained," and on December 11 a letter was received from the Caxton Printing Company by Mr ChamberlaiD, Collector of Qustoms. In this letter the company abandoned their previous eoatention that it was printing piper, and asserted that the paper was paper for drawing and exercise book covers. The quantity of paper contained .in the bales was, counsel was informed, more than would be used in New Zealand for the purpose of drawing and copy covers in ten years. The Customs officer took possession of the goods. Counsel would call expert evidence to prove that the paper was nothing else than starch wrapping paper.

George Prain deposed he was examining officer of the Customs Department, and was 4*i present acting as landing surveyor. Defendant saw witness and Mr Kemplin about some paper the Caxton Printing Company were importing. Kemplin asked wicness what would bo the rate of duty on the goods mentioned in the invoice, and ho replied.6a a hundredweight on starch wrapping paper. Kemplin said that it was not wrapping paper, but printing paper, the goods having been wrongly described in the invoice. Witness said that if it were printing paper it was free, and he could pass it as such. Thomas Michael Cullen, landing waiter, Said that an invoice was presented with the eutry. Witness examined the invoice, and as it contained starch wrapping paper he stopped tho stuff and had it examined by Mr Spence, and, as a result of that examination, the matter was reported to tho Collector of Customs. Joseph L Gregory said that the paper (produced)could not bs called cartridge paper for drawing book". Evidence was also given by Henry R Spence and George C*l : er. The case was then adjourned till the 28th inst.