Publicity questioned over importing offence

Press, 21 April 1979, Page 4

Publicity questioned over importing offence

Undue publicity was often given to cases that did not involve any serious wrongdoing or any injury or i loss to people, said Mr K. N. Frampton, S.M., in the , Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The Magistrate was summing up in the case against a company manager who was charged with importing goods for which he did not have an import licence. Graham Edmond Pilking-I ton, aged 46, manager of the importing company of Bia-! xall and Steven, Ltd, had pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was convicted and discharged. The Magistrate said that cases of this type often attracted more publicity than (they deserved. He held that a large number of cases heard in the No. 1 Magistrate’s Court were of a far more serious nature, and he considered they often warranted more publicity than they were given. Mr G. K. Pankhurst prosecuted for' the Customs Department, and Mr J. Cadenhead was the leading counsel for Pilkington, who denied that he was knowingly involved in the importation of four cartons of scrolls worth more than $lOOO on the ship Rosario Maru, the importation of the goods being prohibited in that no licence had been granted to Blaxall and Steven, Ltd, for the goods.

| The Court was told that, (documents produced to clear| (the goods were not appli-| cable. A customs invoice for “prints,” and a licence for! and licence extract for “pictures suitable for framing only” were presented to the department, and an officer became suspicious.

Subsequent investigations by the officer found that scrolls rather than prints ,were involved, and a search (warrant executed on Blaxall and Stevens, Ltd, found (documents which referred to ! the goods as scrolls. The department’s case was that the goods had been incorrectly described. Scrolls were not “pictures suitable for framing only."

u Mr Pankhurst said there -(was also a copy of a letter isigned by Pilkington which (had been written to the •I Japanese supplier which in- ■ eluded a request for a new ; set of customs invoices. • It was suggested by the ■ prosecution that from the documents produced it

seemed that the scrolls had been advertised as scrolls, ordered by Blaxall and Stevens, and a customs invoice describing them as scrolls had been supplied. However, neither Blaxall and Stevens nor Torro Inter-! national, Ltd. the company, for whom Pilkington was acting, had a relevant licence for importing scrolls,! and Mr Pankhurst suggested

that Pilkington had written to the supplier requesting a new invoice that described the goods as “prints.” The new invoice, with the different description of the goods, had been presented with the licence when the goods were to be cleared from Customs. Mr Cadenhead said Pil, kington had not "knowingly’ 1 tried to import goods for which he did not have a li, cence. He had merely chosen to describe the goods in a different way than they had (appeared on the first in. I voice. Counsel for the defendant suggested it was only an (exercise in semantics to quibble over “scroll" ot “prints.”

It was an attempt by Pilkington to see the importing machinery working as smoothly as possible, be. cause importers were cont in, ually frustrated by the Cus. toms Department when it came to classifying some items, said Mr Cadenhead. The Magistrate said it could not be suggested that the original invoice was in. correct by describing the goods as “scrolls" because thev were, in fact, scrolls and not "prints suitable for framing only.” The Magistrate said that Pilkington had had no ulterior motive in requesting the change in invoices from the supplier but he agreed with the prosecution that aftet August, 1976, the defendant had known the goods were not pictures for framing only but scrolls. Neither Blaxall and Steven nor Torro International had a licence to import these goods.

He was satisfied that Pil. kington was aware of the non-existence of an import licence for scrolls, and by asking the Japanese suppliers to change the original invoice to one pertaining to prints he had brought goods in on a wrong licence and attempted to cover it up, said the Magistrate.