DUTY ON WHISKY

Otago Witness, Issue 3614, 19 June 1923, Page 24

DUTY ON WHISKY

CLAIM AGAINST CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. PETITIONER’S CASE FAILS. A decision of considerable interest was delivered by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) last week when ho dismissed a petition for tho refund of certain duty paid on a shipment of whisky. The claimants were Richard Powley, merchant, and Robert Mason Grcensladc, brewer, of Dunedin, trading as R. Powley and Co., wine and spirit merchants, who sought a refund from the Collector of Customs of an alleged overcharge of £298 2s 6d in duty paid on a shipment of whisky landed in New Zealand in December, 1921. The consignment, which was addressed to Dunedin, arrived in Auckland in November on a ship which eventually landed it in Dunedin, the arrival in Auckland being on the day before the resolution of the House was passed imposing an extra Customs duties. It was “cleared” in Dunedin for home consumption on December 2, this date being between the date of the passing of the resolution and tho ratification of the increases by Parliament. The question was, his Honor said, what was tho true interpretation of the resolution ratified by section 24 of the Customs Amendment Act of 1921? Did it admit provisions of section 143 to be relied on ? “It has to be noted that on November 3 and right up to the passing of the Amending Act on December 22, 1921, the only Customs duties chargeable on spirits was that provided for in the resolution, and it is said, intor alia, that: ‘Notwithstanding anything in section 143 of tho Customs Act 1913, the duty was to be 365.’ ” proceeded the Chief Justice. “The duties mentioned must be paid. Similar words have long ago been construed. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth there apjroared these words in a statute: ‘As if the Act had riot been made,’ and it was held that these words rendered void the provisions referred to.” The words of this resolution were to rule “notwithstanding anything in section 143 of the Customs Act. 1913. These words in my opinion, prevent the claimants from’ invoking the aid of sub-section (b) of section 143. The resolution refers to two classes of goods: (1) All goods imported; or (2) all goods entered for home consumption These goods were so entered, and if section 143 could not at the time of entry have been invoked, this section cannot riow r in my opinion, be relied on. It may bo’ an anomalous position in which the claimants are placed. If the goods had not reached Dunedin till after December 22 and had then been entered the claimants might have relied on sub-section 2 of section 148. but between November 3 and December 22 section 143 was, in mv opmion. not in operation. and consequently tiie claimant's claim must fail.” Tho Crown was allowed costs according to scale with disbursements.