POSSIBLE APPEAL BY GOVERNMENT

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 5

POSSIBLE APPEAL BY GOVERNMENT

Import Regulations

Decision

MR MASON DISCUSSES WORD “FINAL” FOUR MONTHS ALLOWED FOR CONSIDERATION (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 24. “The question is now receiving consideration, and a decision will be reached at an early date,” said the AttorneyGeneral (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) when asked this evening if there was to be an appeal by the Crown against the decision of Mr Justice Callan in the import regulations case.

Mr Mason said that in the meantime, however, he would like to correct the false impression that might have been created by the telegraphed report appearing in certain southern newspapers to the effect that the judgment was final and that therefore there was no appeal. It was quite true that the judgment was a “final” one, but the word “final” referred only to time for appealing. For this purpose judgments were classified as interlocutory and final, the difference between them consisting in the period of time within which an appeal could be brought when the judgment was “final.” In this sense (as it was in the present case) the party whose interest it was to appeal had four months during which to decide whether or not he would proceed with an appeal. It appears unlikely from inquiries, that any importers will take advantage of the ruling by the Supreme Court to order goods from overseas pending the introduction of legislation. The only likelihood of anything being done is by importers who had previously undertaken not to draw on the London funds but who were refused import licences because the lines they wanted to bring in competed with New Zealand manufactures. GOODS INVOLVED IN CASE DELIVERED OTHER FIRMS ALLEGE CUSTOMS “PRETEXTS” (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 24. Delivery of a case of kerosene pumps valued at £l4/4/- was made by'the Customs Department in Auckland today to F. E. Jackson and Company in terms of the judgment secured by the company in an action brought against the Collector of Customs to test the validity of the import regulations. Pending legal advice on the wider implications of the judgment the. department refuses to make any deliveries of goods to importers generally unless licences have been secured and are produced. The position was tested by a number of importing firms but they were refused delivery without licences. The goods concerned included groceries brought from Sydney by the Wanganella, foodstuffs, salt, sugar and other commodities.

“Delivery of goods was refused on several pretexts,” said an officer of the Bureau of Importers. “In some instances they were marked -‘Hold for licence,’ and in the' case of a consignment of sugar it was marked ‘Hold for examination.’ ”

“There is no question of any pretext,” said the Collector of Customs (Mr F. N. Abercrombie) when the comment was referred to him. “The position is that we are prepared to release goods about which there has been compliance with the requirements under the import regulations. The only exception we have made covers goods, ordered by F. E. Jackson and Company that were subject to a specific order for delivery by the Court.” In its policy of continuing to work under the import control regulations the department appears to be following the lines indicated by the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) when he announced that the text of the judgment would be considered carefully by Crown law officers and if they so advised an appeal from the judgment would be lodged. The Government was also prepared to introduce legislation, if necessary, to give effect to the policy prescribed under the regulations. In the meantime, Mr Savage said, he hoped importers would not assume that the importation of goods would be permitted without licence; any attempt to do so could only result in disappointment to those concerned.