DUMPING DUTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20922, 11 July 1931, Page 12

DUMPING DUTY.

DECISION OF GOVERNMENT. IMPOSITION WITHOUT NOTICE. BUSINESS MEN'S COMMENTS. The decision of the Government not to give, 'notice before tho imposition of ;i clumping duty Ivns the subject of comment in several quarters of the city yesterday. Air. A. M. Seaman, president of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, said the only effect of tho regulations would be to give, tho Government power to impose a dumping duty at once, which already it had power to impose at three mouths' riotico. .For tho purpose of protecting New Zealand industries, the power to impose dumping duties was taken tinder the Customs Amendment Act, 1921, and it was generally admitted that iu some circumstances a duty of that, sort was essential.

Given an instance where the duty was warranted, the term of three months' notice would seem likely to defeat the whole purpose of protection, for the goods would be on sale in the market and tho damage would already be done. Tho right to put an imincdiato charge on goods wotdd appear to be more in the line of common sense, but there was, of course, more danger of possible injustice through an ill-considered application rtf the principle. Subject to those qualifications, Mr. Seaman said, he considered the change should be to the good rather than otherwise.

Act and its Interpretation. .In expressing tlio opinion of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Seaman said that in spite of Mr. Forbes' statement that the action was being taken mainly against Australian imports, it was difficult to see how the amended regulations could in any way affect the position in regard to Australian goods. The chamber had taken the view that section 11 of tho Act of 1921, under which the Customs Department had been demanding a special dumping duty deposit, did not give tho power which was claimed for it. If that contention were correct tho department was m no better position by 'reason of tho now regulations, as tho legislative authority was still faulty. Recognising that in some cases a dumping duty was advisable, tho chamber had been pressing the Prime Minister to introduce legislation to clear the matter. A telegram was sent to him yesterday morning by Mr. Seaman, stating that although there was need for some action against Australian imports, the chamber urged tho desirability of regularising tho position by legislation, in view of tho admission by the Comptroller. of Customs that the interpretation of tho Act by the Customs Department was open to question. A similar view was expressed by Mr. S. Taldc, president of the Auckland Manufacturers' Association, who said it was not desirable that any great alteration should bp made in tho existing tariffs. In a general way they seemed to be giving satisfaction, and it was. only reasonable that the Prime Minister should seek to safeguard the existing conditions under which local industries were enjoying a certain amount of protection. Although it was to bo expected that there would be some protest from interested parties, tho Government's action was a legistive provision to cover, the difficulties which had been experienced previously.

Action Considered Arbitrary, Criticism of the regulations was offered by Mr. F. C. Brookbanks, an-Auckland importer. He said the imposition of a dumping duty was an arbitrary action on tho part of tho Government, and would cause commercial " uncertainty," as importers would not know the cost of their goods until they had passed the-customs barrier." * A measure of protection might be necessary agairist foreign aggression, but if unlimited powers were assumed by Parliament there' was the possibility of abuse. The method by which the new regulations were to be brought into force, however, left no room for protest. The head of another large Auckland firm said six months ha'd elapsed since the rates of exchange began to rise against Australia. The currency of the Commonwealth was at present depreciated by 30 per cent, and the export trade was hampered to that extent, while the advantage which it was alleged New Zealand importers received was practically non-existent. There was no occasion for the action proposed by the New Zealand Government, and tho threatened dumping duty appeared to bo a scheme to secure revenue.