WRONG DECLARATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17348, 20 December 1919, Page 10

WRONG DECLARATION.

CUSTOMS ACT BREACH. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. ' NO ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD. [BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.] DUNEDIN, Friday. ' A case in which a young woman, em- ; ployed by Waters, Ritchie, and Co., was . charged with making an erroneous de- , claration to the Custom's Department, j came before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Police Court to-day, when Flora , Mac Donald was* charged that she did un- ' lawfully make a certain declaration under , the Customs Act, 1913, which was errone- ; ' ous within the meaning of section 211 of . ' and contrary to the form, of ; Statute. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. C. MacGregor, K.C., who represented the Customs Department, said the ; defendant was in the employ of Waters, ' ' Ritchie and Co., and was appointed in May, 1918, as the firm's agent to attend , to Customs business and sign the usual forms. On September 5 Miss Mac Donald i passed an entry to the Customs for two cases of furs, which had been imported "from Melbourne. *In order to ascertain the rate of duty it was necessary to fill in in the import entry a declaration of the ' i place where the goods were manufactured r or produced. The cases had been entered f as containing goods purchased in Australia. They were examined and found - to contain the goods described and were delivered on the deposit of the sum of £31, to cover any possible preferential i duty which might be discovered to be due. . It was necessary to obtain a certificate I showing the place of origin, and inquiries i. were made from time to time as to I whether this certificate had come to hand', i On November 5 a letter was produced which stated that most of the goods in the > cases were from China. It was quite clear b that an erroneous declaration had been » made. > Agent's Ignorance of Facts. * Sounsel for the defendants, Mr. J.' C. Stephens, said that with the information that came to hand the Customs Department had been fully entitled to ask for an explanation, and the only complaint the defendants had was that no communication was made with them, other than , the official form, which, in itself, did not 'I apprise the firm of any such serious dereliction of duty as was now charged. As a matter of fact, the heads of the firm knew nothing whatever of the matter until they received the summons. He pointed , out that the provision for the agent statins the origin of the article imported read : "To the best of his knowledge, information, and belief." At the time the entry was passed the defendant knew nothing _ of the existence. of the letter stating that some of the goods came from China. She ' had passed the entries without a certificate of origin oh earlier occasions, declaring Australia when .she had reason to believe their origin was Australia, on the understanding that she obtained a certificate of origin and paid the deposit. Counsel stated, further, that the obvious intention of section 211 was to protect the revenue, while in this case the Depart- » ment had practically 50 per cent, more than the actual duty payable. Furthermore, Waters, Ritchie, and Co. bought these goat skins f.0.b., Melbourne, and . sold them f.o.b. Melbourne, so that the duty would have been payable by the pur--1 chase:-. There was no reason in the . world why they should have attempted to evade liability. The magistrate, in reviewing the evi--3 dence, said defendant had been put in a s very false position by having to accept . too much' responsibility, and it was ti obvious that eh& did not fully appreciate the serious nature of these declarations. Through the ; somewhat loose business P methods of her employers she had appars ently regarded the whole matter ?« a f mere formality. It was a matter of regret . that she should have been before the 3 Court, and' he considered it would be ~ very unfortunate if he had to convict e her. ' View of the Department. g Mr. MacGregor said the view of the e Department was that two separate offences e had been committed, and both were due a to carelessness. The Government could, '. however, remit the whole, or any part, of a the penalty. The Department wanted it i, to be recognised that the making of these i declarations was by no means a perfunctory matter. The Magistrate : I am sorry the Departt merit cannot see its way to withdraw the o charge in view of the position which has f developed. A second charge arising out of the o same declaration wm then preferred i against the firm, Waters, "Ritchie, and f Co. Mr. Stephens entered a plea of guilty. f The magistrate said there had been no s suggestion of any attempt to defraud on a the part of the firm, but at the same time defendants had no cause for complaint against the Department. The penalties under the Customs Act were fixed on a high scale to protect the Department against intentional fraud and inaccuracy, but as there had been neither one nor the other in this case he was obliged to fix the minimum penalty of £25 in the r case of the girl, and also the firm He s regretted having to follow this course . in respect of the girl. T IS ' ■—-——