IMPORT DUTY CASE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 584, 12 August 1909, Page 8

IMPORT DUTY CASE.

(Bj Telegraph.—Press Association:) • Christchurch, August 11. !;• - Judgment' was-'given. torday ..in. the case B6\vronfl3ras.V-v.- ;tlie . Collector bf :;Customs, sn appeal against the decision 1 -of the:Coi-.lector'of'Customs-as.to iniport duties payable on cortain hides. • . • ... •' ■ ■ 'His Honour said, the hides in question were admitted: to bei crust, or rough tanned, but undressed. iV Theplaintiff: rconimny ■} claimed that ..the hides were within tho exemption allowed, ■: biit' the; defendant;: them as dutiable under the: heading o£ sole, pump, or- : harness leather, i/iTho-t. question was whether-ludes, '.trimmed;' aridi cut into two. parts (sides), or four parts (bends'), could properly .be described as "hides'." .If. 1 they .were' properly so; :; then, being crust','.or rough tanned, but .undressed, they ivere : withirij tlie, exemption,':' ; The weight. of export-"evidence; was decidedly. iii.' favour of them being considered as hides by the trade,; and lie did not think external trimming would . deprive tliem of their .'oh aracter, as hides. ■ The . question was not, altogether■ free: from 'doubt,. but' on the whole he had. come to -'the conclusion 'that the goodswerewithin tJio limit of:.'the.,letter.', of. .exemption. > The; fact' that for some time goods ; of:'the samo class had been • passed as\ freo goods tended , to strengthen that conclusion. Judgment would be for the plaintiff 'company.iorvthe';. amount deposited, with'-'interestat', B.',' per. cent.'; till, paid. - 'v "■'V'v