A PURE MISTAKE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 803, 28 April 1910, Page 4

A PURE MISTAKE.

BUT A £25 FINE. ENGLISH GOODS VIA. SYDNEY. At ■ tho Magistrate's Court, yesterday, tho Customs Department proceeded against Edwin Abbot Phelps, merchant, on a charge that, on' March 11, at Wellington, ho did mako and subscribe a false declaration in regard to certain Customed goods.

Mr. Myers appeared- for the Customs Department, and Mr. Herdman for defendant, who pleaded guilty.

In outlining the case for the Customs, Mr. Myers that the fine in such a case was £100, and the Court had no discretion in the matter except to reduce the amount of tho penalty to not less than' one-quarter of tho figure prescribed by the statute. This was a case of a first .ollenco, and, as far as the Department ivas concerned, it had no objection to mako against a reduction of .the fino to i£2o if the Court thought fit to do so. Tho facts wero that defendant's firm imported certain goods from or through a Sydney indent agent. Tho amount of .tile Sydney invoice was 16s. Gd., and the market' value in Sydney (for Customs purposes in New Zealand) was tho above sum plus 10 per cent.,- which was the profit earned by the Sydney indent agent. The Sydney indentor sent not only the original invoice showing the ; English price,' but his own statement showing a 10 per cent, addition. Defendant, in making his: declaration on a prime entry form, stated, that tho only invoice which he had received was tho original English invoice, giving the value as JCSG 16s.' Gd. This was not correct; tho second invoice, with the additional 10 per cent., was the correct one for Customs purposes. Tho Department know tho custom of the particular Sydney indentor with whom defendant had transacted business, and lienco their reason for asking for the second invoice. The practice was one which tended to a possibility of fraud, although, in this case, there was; no allegation .of fraud. Tlie second invoice- was produced by' ( defendant when the question was' raised. Both documents were in defendant's possession, and he should have' full- one in the first place, instead lof the smaller one.

Mr. Herdmaii informed , tho. Court that defendant aiul his iirin were;, highly respectable importers, and, as counsel for the' prosecution had said, there was no suggestion of fraud in this case, and he (counsel) was in a' position to prove this.' There was not only no fraud; but absolutely no intention of such. A mistake had been "made. No excuso dered, '.however, would allow defendant to escape a. penalty , under the wording of the section. Mr. Phelps and his partner were in tho habit of importing goods from England, ami last year they , had paid something over i£3ooo. in duty. Defendant purchased a cerfain • lino of goods from a Sydney indentor, arid fcb'o goods came over to Wellington-with'the usual invoice attached. There was also an additional statement showing a further-10 per 'cent, added. This 10 per cent., it could be.proved, represented freight from Eu». lanchto Sydney, pn which, it was urged, the Customs here could not claim duty. When the time arose for clearing the goods at Wellington, the agent instructed to do tho work gave tho statement complained of, but not the second one. AVlien sent to for an explanation, defendant immediately saw tho Collector of Customs (Mr. Nixon), and put the case fully before him. in all its particulars. He understood that, the explanation . was accepted by Mr. Nixon, but-in the course of .his duty Mr. Nixon-liad 'apparently to. report the matter to. head office, as a mistake had been made, .by- defendant. As a' result,, tho 'prosecution had been undertaken. A slip had-bcen made, and under the section of the Act there was no escape from a .penalty, 'although defendant had power to apply to tho Minister for a remission of the fine. • There was absolutely.no intention of fraud, but a slip, which anyone carrying on business in the city might make, had been made by. defendant. His -Worship remarked that the penalty was fixed at £100 by the'statutc, but after hearing tho statements. by.,the prosecution and tho explanation made-by.counsel ,for the defence, 1 , it seemed "to''Him that' .it ■being a first 'offeiice, and luide'r' the particular circumstances, tho minimum penalty should be imposed. Defendant must be fined <£100, but:the fine would be reduced to i£2s. Costs, £2 Os! Gd., were allowed. -.' I