Over-Importations.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 54, 17 February 1921, Page 5

Over-Importations.

WHOSE THE BLAMET VIEWS OF LOCAL IMPOSTERS. MANUFACTURERS’ METHODS. Several local importers were interviewed last week with a view to ascertaining their opinion regarding Mr. Dalton’s letter and the editorial comment, published in the “Tribune” on Ist, 2nd, and 3rd February, respectively, concerning the recent heavy shipments of goods from the United Kingdom to New Zealand. While it is recognised that those interviewed are smsdl traders compared with the wholesale importers and indenters operating in the large centres, the result of the inquiries is of value, for these men are in a position to speak on a subject which directly affects their business. The opinion, generally expressed, is that the “Tribune’s” comment on Mr. Dalton’s explanation of the action of the British exporters was fully justified. The heavy shipments were very embarrassing to New Zealand traders, for, besides overloading them with goods, they were the cause of considerable financial stress. It is not only the retailers that are affected. At the present time the wholesale merchants’ stores are choked with goods and further shipments are still arriving. In order to make room for the latter, merchants ore said to be discounting their stocks, in some instances, it is stated, to 25 per cent, below cost, so as to effect clearances. With the one or two exceptions, mentioned later, the drapers feel that they have a grievance against the British manufacturer. The orders they give are to meet the requirements of the season immediately following the date of the order. They consider that time should automatically cancel the order. It is a general practice among them to order six months ahead, to enable the manufacturer to supply the goods for the cur rent season, and at the end of twelve months to order again. If the goods ordered fail to arrive in time for the season’s trade, the opportunity for their disposal is lost, and they would give up expecting them and order afresh entirely different stocks for the next season to provide for the demands of changed fashions and tastes. It is contended that the manufacturers should have known this, and applied themselves to executing the most recent orders received, and regarded the accumulated orders as cancelled. It is admitted that many order cd in excess of their actual needs. This had become necessary during recent years to ensure getting even a small proportion of their seasonal requirements. They were advised to do this by buying agents and travellers who knew exactly what their needs were, and they were left in ignorance of the changed conditions in trade at Home which enabled the exporters to suddenly flood the New Zealand market. One or two of the interviewed drapers, however, exonerated the British manufacturers from blame. They contend that this attaches to the buying agents for not cancelling or amending the orders. The agents are the men who should know the requirements of their clients, and they should have instructed the manufacturers accordingly and prevented the execution of accumulated orders. The manufacturers were keen c3mmercial men looking to dispose of their goods in the best market, and, having orders on hand at high prices, they, as every business man would do, set to work to satisfy that market. Regarding the standard of commercial honesty of the British manufacturers, the result of the interviews discloses that, as in all other walks of life, there are varying degrees of integrity to be found among them as a class. In one business house we visited it was found that exporters trading with it had invoiced at the highest price, whichever it happened to be of the two—the price at the time of ordering or the price ruling at the time of shipment. It was left to an American firm with which they had business to set a better example by giving his customer the benefit of a fall in price which had occurred after the order had been placed with him. A bad instance of exploitation was brought under our notice by a business man outside the drapery trade. During the war he had ordered some mirrors. These were sent down to the docks and it was five months later before they were shipped. In the interim, while the mirrors were awaiting shipment, the price went up 100 per cent., and the exporter amended the invoice accordingly- This dishonest trick, it can be given no other name, has lost that maker of mirrors a customer for all time. Another case was brought under pur notice where the importer had written to a hardware exporter his views that the high prices of the goods invoiced to him were due, not to the increased cost pf production, but to the keen competition at home for goods in scarce commodity, and that it was not a fair thing to penalise New Zealand customers on that account. The head of the firm written to admitted that there was something in the contention and generously allowed his customer a discount of no less than 50 per cent on the invoice price of the goods exported. It is gratifying to find evidence of a high standard of commercial morality among many manufacturing firms. In one drapery house it was shown that the buyer was to get the benefit of lower values ruling at time of shipment. The goods had been bought at a higher price, and the invoice prices were voluntarily marked down by the manufacturer, an action which was greatly appreciated by the buyer. A significant point to note is that this importer says that he realised in the early half of last year that people coidd ‘not much longer continue purchasing the expensive drapery they had indulged in during the war and the prosperous years that followed, so he decided to ease off buying that class of high-priced goods in order to meet the changed conditions which ho foresaw could not be much longer fended off. He acted with self reliance and sound judgment and has no complaint to make against the British manufacturer. In the above brief summary of the impressions gained in the course of the interviews, our endeavour has been to state the position clearly and without bias. Both sides of the case have been presented without any attempt to Influence opinions. While it is left to the impartial reader to form his own judgour opinion is still the same—the evidence we have taken has not shaken the arguments brought forward in our recent editorials on the subject.