CUSTOMS FRAUDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19453, 8 October 1926, Page 15

CUSTOMS FRAUDS.

PENALTIES TOTAL £3126. MILLINERY FIRM'S OFFENCES. PROSECUTION IN MELBOURNE. Large sums of money were involved in 63 charges of breaches of the Australian Customs Act, to which Pauline e.t Cio Proprietory, Limited, modistes, of Collins Street. Melbourne, pleaded guilty recently in the Melbourne Police Court. The charges were that thefirm evaded the payment of duty on dutiable goods, made false entries and presented falso documents. Four charges of smuggling were preferred against Miss Mary Elizabeth Gray, who, with Miss Mabel Gray, is the proprietress of the business. One charge of having evaded duty on goods brought into the country as passenger luggage was made against Miss Mabel Gray. Mr. L. Cussen, who appeared for the Customs Department, said that investigations revealed that since 1922 there had been a scries of systematic frauds practised upon the department. The suspicion of the department was aroused iu December, 1920, in connection with the importation of certain hats, with the result that tho authorities, acting on a warrant, seized a large number of books, documents and records of trade at the premises of the defendants. Theso revealed that frauds had been perpetrated, the total amount of duty evaded amounting to ,£SO6. System of Two Novices. The scheme as explained by counsel was that the consignor sent two invoices, oue genuine, setting out tho right amount, and the other, for a much smaller amount, upon which customs duty was paid. With respect to one consignment of goods valued at £54, the invoico presented showed £l9. Other charges related to tho importation of French goods which were declared as British, upon which the duty payable was lower. The smuggling charges, said Hr. Cussen, involved large amounts, the valuo of tho goods in one case being £642. Theso goods were brought back by Miss Mary Gray from Europe and insured as her luggage for £BOO. Mr. Cussen represented that the department regarded this as a very bad case of a practice which was very prevalent but very difficult to detect. He asked for orders for refunds and expenses against tho defendants, and stated that he would leave the question of penalty to the Bench. Mr. Gorman, for the defendants, undertook to pay the amount of duty evaded —£806—and expenses. He pressed for a small penalty, representing that, if the minimum penalty were imposed on all tho charges it would amount to £BOO. Remarks by Magistrate.

Tho magistrate, Mr. Grant, -who took time to consider his decision, said that while endeavouring to give effect to the appeal for a minimum penalty made by counsel for tho defence, he had to respect. the statute under which the proceedings were taken. It viewed tho offence with a great deal of gravity. There was evidence of systematic fraud extending over a period of years by the active defendants, who were people of education and intelligence. In regard to the charges of evasion of payment of duty, he regarded them as merely acts of turpitude. He had therefore fixed the minimum penalty, exclusive of costs which amounted to £96, and amounts to be refunded to tho department. The fines inflicted on the individual defendants were Pauline et Cie, £1490; Mary Elizabeth Gray, £725; and Mabel Gray, £lO. The total amount payable bv tho firm and the Misses Gray, including costs, is £3126.