PREFERENTIAL TRADE ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 59, 14 March 1904, Page 2

PREFERENTIAL TRADE ACT.

It was recently decided, under the

I'refcrcntial Tiit<l.■ Act, that foreign ajni British manufactured goody must not In- packed in tin- nana' caw. On I hi' face of it there. appeared KOllll' IViIHOII for this decision, which was also supported by the wording of tile Act. The Christchurch 'ft-utli says that llie same cannot faithfully be said of the latest decision under the Act, whereby it is declai'lHl that British manufactured (foods, not mentioned in the schedules Id I lie Act, must lie packin separate cases (o those in which British manufactured goods aie packed in respect to which preference is pi veil, and which are meutiont'd in the schedule to the Act. Supposing, for instance, that the well known Knglish watch liiann.art tiring tii iii of Kot herhams also made clocks, and that an iniponer ordereil clocks and watches from them, and thai they were packed in 1 lie same »ase. On arrival here the watches (not being mentioned in the schedules to the I'rel'erential Trade Act) would he lorfeiled without uuv compensation to the importer. The effect of this interpretation of the Act, according to a Christchurch importer's opinion (riven to a representative of Truth, will lie that under certain circumstances importing linns will lie tumble to obtain certain Knglish manufactures. li follows that a merchant importing a small line of Knglish goods not dealt with in the schedule, must haw heavier chare,",s to pay than the merchant who can import !h" same goods in larger quantity. The importer who iwpre'-sed ; hese opinions has had to study the Act. very ciosely. in ord'T to ad\jse Home firms regarding its provisions, mid the ipiestion of packing Itrilish goods mentioned in the schedules With Hl'itish goods Hot so mentioned, in the same case or package, was one that lie submitted to the Customs authorities for their decision. To say that their decision has astounded him is to inadequately Convey his feelings on the subject, lie is of opliioj)) that the Department. hus rather strained tht' rending of section 8 of the Act, and that the Legislature never "intended that it should Ik; interpreted in the manner it lins been.