CANNED FRUIT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22293, 20 June 1934, Page 5

CANNED FRUIT

DUMPING FROM AUSTRALIA ACTION BY MANUFACTURERS The conviction that the dumping* of Australian canned fruits was being carried out in New Zealand was expressed by the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association at a meeting yesterday after local representatives of the industry bad placed information before it. The subject was introduced by Mr W. Stevenson, who, after referring to subsidies granted to tbe industry in Australia, expressed the opinion that half the production of fruit there was sold a£ a loss both internally and ■ overseas. Mr E. F. Lord claimed that the present tariff policy was not acting in the interests of the fruit industry in New Zealand. For - a number of years past, he stated, Australian , canners and growers had benefited considerably from bounties and subsidies paid to them by their Governments, both Federal and State. He would confine himself to costs and selling prices, taking his figures from authentic sources—the report of. Development and Migration Commission (1929) and the Sugar Concession Committee’s report (1932). In considering any request for protection against the dumping of goods by another country, the Government must satisfy itself that the selling prices were not lower, than those charged for a similar commodity for homo consumption in the exporting country. If such were the case the Government Was perhaps justified in retaining. the- existing duties. But, when the Government of the exporting country subsidised that ; industry from public funds a. different aspect was put on the question. It practically meant that 'he Australiau canners and growers were selling unidor cost and were being reimbursed for their losses by the subsidies and bounties from other sources. For instance, in 1928 the f.0.b.. costs of apricots and peaches - had been 7s 7id and 7s 4fd respectively for 30oz cans, and the f.o.b. prices, for export to the United Kingdom had been 6s 9}d and 5s 7d respectively. The prices for export to New Zealand in 1929 (8s and | 7s 3d) had been considered satisfactory. In 1938 , the Control Board had substantially reduced the h.c. values ?o apricots 6s 3d, peaches 6s 3d, and pears 6s 9d. This year the export prices f.o.b. I were apricots 6s 6d, peaches 6s, and pears 6s 6d, and the h.c. values on which duty was payable were apricots 6s, peaches 5s 9d, and pears 6s 3d. The costs for 1934 had not been- materially altered. x

Mr Lord submitted that a clear case of dumping had been made out and stated that only by virtue,of *the subsidies granted were the manufacturers being reimbursed. The growers themselves in Australia received assistance iu the form of free transport of certain materials and low freight rates. Mr Stevenson said that it was impossible to calculate the amount paid in subsidies. He added that the information had not been in the hands of local firms when the Tariff Commission was in session.

The chairman (Mr, James Hogg) said that there seemed to him to be a distinct ease for action. The following resolution was unanimously adopted:—“ While Australia may shelter behind the real definition of dumping, which says that the export price must be less than the home consumption value, yet this association is satisfied from evidence put before it that Australian canned fruits are being sold for less than real cost largely because of the subsidies and concessions granted to the Australian canning industry by the State and Federal Governments, and that, therefore, the. New Zealand canned fruit trade is to all intents and. purposes being subjected to very serious dumping from Ausffalia.”. F: • /

It Was also decided to ask the Manufacturers’ Federation to take the matter up with the Government;