CHASSIS CANNOT BE DUTY FREE.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 28 September 1927, Page 8

CHASSIS CANNOT BE DUTY FREE.

REVENUE LOSS WOULD BE TOO GREAT

WELLINGTON, Last Night

Two points of view of the now tariff as affecting the motor business were placed before the Minister of Customs to-day. Mr. W. J. Cousins, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Motor Body Builders, said that it was felt cnat the only way to meet me

position was to remit the duty on chassis when the body was to he manufactured in the Dominion. The British chassis should come in free and there should be a 10. per cent, reduction on foreign chassis when the body was to he manufactured in the Dominion.

Adequate protection was asked for to enable local builders to compete against ■foreign manufacturers because Britain was not building bodies on the knockdown principle as were some of the foreign countries] It was claimed that the importation of knockod-down bodies, while it might provide employment tor unskilled workers, would diminish the number of skilled workers in the Dominion.

The point, of view of motor traders and importers in opposition to that of motor body builders was put by Mr. J. F. Cousins, who said that anything that would make the tariff suitable to all parties would be welcomed. But they found that to. be impossible. Not Enough Protection.

Ho thought that coaeh-buildcrs and the public failed to realise the amount of protection that had been given to the motor building industry, but wffiicb up to the present had failed to meet its objective. He was firmly of the opinion that construction of motor bodies for the mass-production type of lower-priced cars could never become an important industry in this coun try. He denied that there Avas any concerted action on the part of importers to restrict the building of bodies in Ncav Zealand. In the last four years the 'public had had to pay, soraeAvhcre near £1,000,000 to protect the motorbody building industry and still they were told that it was languishing. In that time the revenue from Customs duty on motor-cars had averaged £1,000,000 per annum.

Importers preferred to go on wdtli the tariff as it Avas at present rather than have it tinkered with again as stability was wanted for the motor industry.

: A complete investigation of the whole position was recommended. The neAv tariff would not make any difference to motor-body builders and the suggestion that it would close all worksliops was unfair and unsound. On behalf of British manufacturers and agents Mr, G. O. fatten said they urged the . admission of British chassis free 'With 25 per cent, duty on foreign chassis. The present proposal favoured American manufacturers. Minister Replies. “ You can see from wnat has happened that Avhenever you touch any item in the tariff you do not knoAv whether it is a perfectly simple operation or whether it is full of dynamite,” said the Minister in replying to the deputation. When the Tariff Commission submitted its report he had been told by the chairman (Mr. Craig) that there was no reduction in motor bodies duties.

The other suggestion about a 5 per cent, reduction on unassembled bodies ho took to be in line with what was desired- by various people interested in the British side of the industry. Whether it would be possible to make some adjustment was a matter he would have to discuss with Mr. Craig, Controller of Customs.

One thing was certain and that was that they could not afford duty free chassis—that would mean too great a loss of revenue. The representations made would bo gone into, but it was hoped to bring them on the Tariff Bill almost imme diately. There was bound to be a conflict of interests, and they must tread on somebody’s corns whichever way they went when they dealt with tariff matters.

In reply to a question from the Min ister, it was stated that motor body builders would prefer not to have any change made in the tariff rather than than that the new proposals should be brought into effect.