The Press Friday, January 7, 1927. The "Dumping" Difficulty.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18893, 7 January 1927, Page 8

The Press Friday, January 7, 1927. The "Dumping" Difficulty.

: We print to-day a reply which the , Acting-Prime Minister, 3lr Downie | Stewart, writing as Minister for Cus- ; toms, has sent to Mr David Jones, M.P., who in a letter made public on ; December 30th suggested a method of | obtaining correct information concernj ing the current domestic (Australian) value of flour exported from Australia to New "Zealand. Mr Jones proposed that, since the declarations of value made by the Australian exporter for the New Zealand Customs Department are not dependable, invoices of shipments containing the declaration should be endorsed by a New Zealand official in Australia. Mr Stewart mentions some difficulties m the way of adopting this suggestion, but these difficulties are of little importance one way or the other in the light of the Minister's demonstration of the fact that it is the next thing to the impossible to impose dumping duties on anything. Mr Stewart does not say this in so many words, or even indirectly suggest it, but that, nevertheless, is the general effect of his explanation of the law. What the law amounts to is, apparently, this: (1) dumping duties may be imposed on goods sold to New Zealand at less than the actual selling price in the country of origin; but (2) so many things must be considered that "genuine dumping" is nearly impossible of proof, and (3) in any case, even if ''genuine dumping" were going on, the Minister must consider "the public interest.'' Mr Stewart quotes from a writer on the subject some remarks which, if their tenor guides the Customs Department, practically wash out any provisions for the application of dumping duties:

In international commerce the sale at different prices to* purchasers in different national markets may occur without involving price discrimination if the price-differentials are merely adjustments to differences in the size of the unit orders coming from different countries, in the length of the credits, in the extent of the credit risks, in the grades of commodities, in the time at which the sales contracts were made, in the»method of conducting the selling operations, or in the treatment of freight and packing charges.

How the Government can obtain full information on all these points, in respeet of flour or of anything else imported to New Zealand we fail to see, but Mr Stewart nevertheless adds that as it may " at a later date " be necessary to impose a dumping duty on flour "enquiries are being made" as to the conditions of sale in Australia. But apart from the inherent difficulty of such "enquiries," the Government is clearly not at present anxious to do anything, partly because, so it says, no abnormal exportation of Australian flour to New Zealand is going on, and partly because there are other farmers than wheat-farmers to be considered. For our own part, we have never cared much for the idea of dumping duties, but it certainly seems to be very unfair to the wheat-grower and the miller to lead them to think that the "anti- " dumping " provisions in the Customs law are a real measure of protection, when Mr Stewart's letter seems to show that they are of no effective value at all. But for the existence of these provisions those interested in the wheatgrowing and milling industries would have asked before now for really effective protection which would work as automatically as the high protection given to many of our secondary industries. Canterbury farmera may well complain, as they are more and more loudly complaining, that it is only when they ask for protection that the politicians discover that any protection given to one section of the community mnst be paid for by the rest. Our counsel to them is, as we have said before, to demand as much consideration as other producers, and to fight for such tariff protection as will make wheat-growing really profitable over a series of years.