Denial of breaches in car import

Press, 5 July 1983, Page 4

Denial of breaches in car import

I A Christchurch man was alleged in the District Court yesterday to have tried to bring a 1977 Pontiac Firebird car from the United States into New Zealand last year by declaring an earlier purchase date in 1979 to circumvent restrictions introduced in the Government’s Budget of June 21, 1979. The defendant, Ivan Robert Wright, aged 29, a clerk, denied two breaches . of the Customs Act and one of the Sales Tax Act in ■ relation to his importation of the car which was said to be worth more than $20,000 in New Zealand.

The charges are that the defendant, on or about September 27 last year, evaded payment of $5920 in sales tax by producing to a customs officer a false statement of facts dated April 27, 1980, which showed that he had taken delivery of the car in San Diego on June 19, 1979, when the true date of possession was June 28, 1979; a similar charge in relation to producing a false statement of facts to evade customs duty of $1656; and a charge of producing as genuine, a false statement of facts to an officer of customs, in that the date of purchase of the car was June 28, and not June 19, 1979.

Judge Fogarty adjourned the hearing to Thursday for completion. Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Customs Department, and Mr L. M. O’Reilly for the defendant.

Mr Saunders, outlining the charges against the defendant, said that at the time of his importing the car the defendant went to the Customs Department to complete documents. He produced documents which indicated that he had taken delivery of the vehicle on June 19, 1979. Before the Budget of June 21,1979, returning New Zealand residents could import motor-vehicles duty free if certain prerequisites were satisfied. One of these was the ownership and use of the vehicle in the 21 months before the importation. After that date no such concession applied because of an amendment to the ' Customs Amendment Act. The Budget provisions relating to motor-vehicles were known to the defendant before the importation as he had corresponded with the Christchurch office to ask if the vehicle would qualify as a duty free import, Mr Saunders said.

In this correspondence the defendant replied that the date of delivery of the vehicle was June 19, although he said that some of the paperwork was completed later. The department then advised that because delivery was taken before June 22, the car would qualify for duty-free entry.

The car was released to the defendant last September. Further inquiries about the delivery date were made, and the defendant denied that the statement of

facts was falsified or incorrect as to delivery date. Mr Saunders said that evidence would show that the vehicle did not come into the possession of the car sales firm until June 20, 1979.

The department contended that the vehicle was not delivered to the defendant until after the paperwork was completed on June 28, 1979. Stewart Paul Buttar, a customs officer, said that he interviewed the defendant last October about the importation. The defendant said that he purchased the car on June 19, 1979. He took delivery of it on that date. He paid SUS6SOO for it. Cross-examined, he agreed that from the very first time the defendant communicated with the department, he advised that there were hire-purchase documents dated June 28, 1979, relating to the car.

The defendant had never tried to camouflage that fact.

Brent Murray Stanaway, a solicitor, said that while on holiday in the United States last December, he examined various documents held by the company, from which the defendant purchased the car. They included a copy of an agreement for sale and purchase of the motorvehicle between the company and the defendant and his wife. This was dated June 28, 1979, and appeared to have been signed by the defendant and his wife.