IMPORTED MACHINERY

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 July 1937, Page 14

IMPORTED MACHINERY

tariff concessions. [per press ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 9. Tn a statement on the application of Section U of the Customs Amendment Act, 1927. and on the reported remarks attributed to Mr J. Hargest M.P. in an address at Lower Hutt about the purchase of certain roadmaking machinery by the Government, I the Hon. Mark Fagan ( Acting-Mmistei for Customs) made the following observations to-day: “I have read Mr. Hargest’s remarks with interest —and, I may say, with some surprise—and as the matter of granting concessions by way of duty on imported foreign-made machinery falls within my jurisdiction it would appear desirable that, in order that an incorrect inference will not be drawn from certain of his observations, the actual position should be stated.

“Mr. Hargest does not appear to un- ■ derstand ‘the necessity of giving preference by legislative action to certain makes of American machinery.’ The authority for granting concessions in respect of the importation of certain foreign-made machinery and other g00d.,, is contained in Section 11 of the Customs Amendment Act, 1927. The section provides that if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Customs that goods suitable or intended for use in manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, scientific, therapeutic or similar purposes,; are of a kind not economically produced or manufactured in British Dominions, the Minister may. in his discretion, drect that such goods be admitted as if they were the produce or manufacture of some part of the British Dominions; or, in the alternative, that they be admitted at a rate of duty intermediate between the rate specified in the British preferential tariff and the rate specified in the general tariff. “This provision was incorporated in the legislation by a previous Government, but it. is not novel in character. Other units of the British Commonwealth, notably the United Kingdom and Australia, have a similar provision in their legislation. In considering applications for the admission of for-eign-made goods under the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Amendment Act, 1927, it is the practice to invite His Majesty’s Trade Commissioner in New Zealand to have investigations made through his department in London about whether suitable goods or apparatus of the kind needed are ecconomically obtainable of British manufacture. As far as the foreign-made road-making machinery enumerated in the published list of the Minister’s decisions, referred to by Mr. Hargest, His Majesty’s Trade Commissioner was afforded, and availed himself of, the opportunity to make full investigations; and no action has been taken either by the Government or by me that would conflict with the evidence obtained as a result of those investigations. His Majesty’s Trade Commissioner is aware of, and. under- : stands, the position, and, furthermore, , has not disputed the action that has been taken.

“Briefly the position affecting the concessions that have been granted in respect of foreign-made road-making machinery (and in respect of all other industrial appliances covered by the section) is either that comparable apparatus is not obtainable of British manufacture or that where obtainable the selling prices are such that it would not be economical to purchase the British-made appliances even when the fully duty payable on the foreignmade plant is taken into account. In the former event there is no point in maintaining tariff preference in respect of non-existent British goods, and in the latter event insistence on payment of duty on the foreign-made goods can only have the effect of increasing the price to local bodies (and to the taxpayers) without any commensurate benefit to Empire trade.

DISCRIMINATION DENIED “It would seem evident that Mr. Hargest did not fully understand the subject of his discourse; but had he approached me in the matter I would have been very pleased to have afforded him such information as lay within my power. This course w'ould have been desirable in order to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding arising out of his remarks. “A very unsatisfactory feature of Mr. Hargest’s address (as reported) is -his implication that the concessions granted under the provisions of the section of the Customs Acts referred to in respect of certain kinds of foreign made machinery have been restricted to ‘certain makes only.’ In other words, the allegation is that discriminatory treatment has been accorded 'certain makes’ of machinery to the exclusion of other comparable apparatus. This allegation is not in accordance with the fact. Each application for admission of goods under the provisions o£ the section is considered solely in relation to the evidence obtained, and goods of any specific class are accorded identical treatment. In point of fact there are several firms in New Zealand which have been granted concessions in respect of certain similar types of the road-making machinery which they tire aide to supply, and the utmost car? has been taken to ensure that all are placed on an equitable footing. No action has been taken that would prejudice New Zealand or Empire industries. New Zealand manufacturers tire fully aware that any decision granting a concession under the provisions of the section -would immediately be cancelled upon their demonstrating that they were economically manufacturing in New Zealand a similar appliance io that in question. That is one of the reasons for the publication of the decision in the New Zealand Gazette.

“Another reason for the publication of the decision is that importers of similar machinery maye be made aware of the position, and really to invite them to make application for a similar concession if they so desire. It. is, of course, not always practicable to frame a comprehensive decision covering all machines in the same general class, and the published decisions under the section are therefore usually specific. As stated above, several importers have availed themselves of the concessions with respect to the roadmaking machinery required. “Again I regret that Mr. Hargest did not take the trouble to consult me about this phase of the’Customs law. I am. always pleased to explain to inquirers any point with which they may not be conversant.”