AN IMPORTANT OVERSIGHT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2929, 4 May 1910, Page 12

AN IMPORTANT OVERSIGHT.

PROCEEDED AGAINST BY CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. WELLINGTON, April 27. Charged with making a false declaration) regarding uncustomed goods, Edwin Abbott Phelps pleaded guilty before Mir W. G. Riddell, S.M., to-day. Mr C. E. Nixon, Collector of Customs, prosecuted, I Mr M. Myers appeared for the Crown, and Mr A. L. Herdman for defendant. i Mr Myers said it was a first offence, I and, so far as the defendant was concerned, there would be no objection to a reduction in the penalty. Defendant or his firm were importers in Wellington, ! and imported certain goods from a Syd- | new indentor the English invoice value of which was set down at £B6 16s 6d. The indentor forwarded to defendants with the goods and original invoice a statement, the latter including a 10 per cent, addition for agents' expenses and profits. Defendant in making his prime entry on i the declaration form declared that he had j only the original (English) invoice for ! £B6 16s 6d. Such a declaration was ini correct, as defendant had the indentors' statement in his possession. The Customs officials, said counsel, knew the usage of this particular firm in Sydney, and had raised no objection to such a custom. (Parenthetically Mr Myers pointed out that such a process tended to the possibility of fraud, though there was no allegation of fraud against defendant.) With this knowledge, the officer of the Customs Department, when defendant mad© his declaration, raised the question , as to whether the first invoice was correct ! for Customs purposes, and then defendant produced the statement from the Sydney indentor. Having had both invoices and statement in his possession, it was obligatory on him to have produced the statement in the first instance. In explaining the facts, Mr Herdman . said that as defendant was a member of j a firm of reputable importers it was neces- ■ sary that these facts should be placed j clearly before the court. He would prove absolutely that there had been no inten- \ tion on the part of defendant to defraud i the Customs by evading duty. Under , the section- under which the charge was ; laid it was not open to him to plead that i his client had made a mistake. There 1 was no defence under that particular section. It was sufficient for a man to I make a genuine error and to have committed a breach of the act. Defendant's firm was in the habit of importing goods from Great Britain, and last year had paid a matter of £SOOO in duty. Counsel related the fact as to the arrival of the goods and the invoice and the statement with 10 per- cent, added. That 10 r(sr cent, represented freight charges on the goods to Sydney from Home. If that were so, the Customs here were not entitled to claim on them. When making the declaration defendant inadvertently failed to tender the statement. The importation from Sydney was an exceptional thing with defendant. Subsequently defendant saw Mr Nixon, and thoroughly explained the circumstances, that officer accepting them as entirely satisfactory. Counsel said he wished specially to demonstrate that there had been no fraud nor intention of fraud. The slip had been made, and there was no ©soaping a penalty, though application might be made to the Minister under another section of the act for a remission of the fine. Counsel emphasised that there had been no intention on defendant's port to deceive or to defraud. His Worship said that, after hearing the statements of both counsel and con- j sidering that it was a first offence, he j thought it was a case where the minimum | penalty would meet the- circumstances. I Defendant would be fined £IOO (the \ penalty to be .reduced to £25) and' costs ■ amounting to £2 0s 6d.