LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 936, 1 October 1910, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. >

ASSESSMENT OF IMPORT DUTY. A TEST CASE. - MARKET VALUE OF SAMPLES. :: A. case of 'considerable ■ interest to importers was': opened .in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before- tlie Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The local .firm of : -George Doughty, importers : 'and . iiident '. .agsnts,. petitioned' against 'a ; certaui-. assessment by * the .Customs Department, of articles, for: purposes of' import' duty. : The question involved was as . to.-.thei interpretation of the words "fair'"-market:value," witli special reference to goods imported for use. as, samples. , It' was; stated during ■the';hearing that'the case:is a.'test case, and that the matter ', isone .in which. the importers• consider that they lhave a long stimding.-grievance against, the Customs Department. . The actual claim of George and Doughty was for the recovery of . £40; 4s;■ Bd., alleged, excess: duty paid, .by ,' them. Tho :■ proceedings were, taken under the.'Crowii Suits Act. . Mr. 'R. B; Williams appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. 51. Myers .for the : Customs Department. ; . •'.' Mr. Myers said that, strictly speaking, the -.petitioners shouldjhave sought, their: remedy iri-.arbitrationj because the question involved was not as to the rato of.duty; but ,the amount of duty. However, as there was a question of law involved,,,the Customs / Department had any objection to the procedure.

: v;A!rthnr,.John George, ai: member of .the. .questions were "single articles -purchased! direct. from /Messrs'.>W.: F. ,Lucas, arid,Go;,; , London ' Wall;- London; at. a 80 per cent.discount.^Traveller's took thorn to tkotradein New Zealand, and orders were sent'.Home. The goods being- miassorted would', not be bought by any retail or. wholesale firm, except at a heavy discount. , They were, under the ,circumstancesi>not .worth the list priced The trado allowed about 30 per cent on tho list prices, so as >to - bring-them down to a fair market value:, Taking . all tho -year' -rouridiwitriess's' firm made ■a '.considerable! loss;, on'the. sale of ■ samples. / Single triot: be ' sold so well as goods-in .bulk.' . Even. the. ■'retailer to :/display - more/, thanone' of a : kind. With■ regard to 'selling; ;theni.'witness. regarded samples in tho same light as job lots. . , ,Mr. .Myers:: Wo don't dispute: that job lots '-are'.subject'; to a large discount; ■ His Honour: Then- you make a- distinction •: hetwOeri; j ob;, lots' arid Samples P 1 Mr,..Myers: are .not going ...to; allow-'thetquestidS' of;' job\l6ts'mbe introduced into l this controversy at all. •' ;Mf. : -, 'Williarns The';, sariie '. principle applies, whether they are/ job lots or samples. t." Mr. Myers.. (cross-examining): Do you know: that it :has r, .been; the'.piractice bf .theiCustoms 'De'partment not to allow tho ."sample';;discount .Yes;; •anft ; ;l l and. lithmfeifflans;^ojhej^people; bavo protested, too.-... ■;;,. i . Witness;*'':fuHlieriisaid-' his:' .firm .• were' ;the;?W^ ; Lucas;.and r Cpiapariy, Land ~rio .'other New, ''Zealand''- Smi«would;.-' be - //'supplied. ; with samples'. by. Lucas and- Company' direct", though tM;bri|eirs of other firms could .get sthem l .;,ffbni';..liuca's'/'■ arid-Compariy.' ::If r ::.tl^e;latfer/ : ,:sen^Jgoods:.'dkMt'/.to^'any, - otlicr-/fii-iri' In Zealand,., tbey would pay - a commission. .to George and coiiimori s - arrangement.; Lucas ' and Company would not prepare ya ./range j?of ; i: samples;vfpr.'.':sale; *exc6pt/'ti6'. kept'- samples :in"London'to/use'; in. makirig /sales;-and •at-.the end of■ tliQ season,>-thoy, would /"job'' -theiri, off, :',for'f!wliat' they/co'Uldjiget.y Albert Arthur Corrigan, riianager for. the 7 ;last'>-twenty ; years ■ of.' the: D.1.C., said his ' imported sam-. pies, and riever purchased them at •bulk-prices.' Tho D.I.C. 'would not buy them.- at less than 75 per' cent, discount. Samples ,wero sometimes , sent freej. as they,;;wero- of; such-smallrvalue, ■ aridvy^'-'ther^.TyereCustoms /charges' <m 'them.., v' <■■ William Henry O'Halloran George, of tho -firm of George-and- Kersley; Ltd., said .that' in buying sample goods' like, those concerned in the case', from London; he would expect 'to got a discount of 27 per cpnt. to 33 l-3rd per; cent. :Ho.-would 'take /thb/,full range, of ,sam-' pies and. would require the discount, because .he 'would.(riot ..be-'able 'to sell all tho articles, some •of them being unsuitable to his trade.: Mr. Williams: What would you say. is. the difference: between,'job-lots-. and ] sample's There' > niayv, be ■ .'no'.'difference 1 : .■flt' l all^V:. ; Aifer-'ythe-Xsamples , J,liay(Bibeeh" 1 - shoirri A ' about, tliby' riiay coirio back to the .warehouse somewhat -soiled, and can then only bo sold.a .bigger, discount.-1 ' Alexander Veiteh; partner in 'the firm of Veitch and "Allan, said tliat. .any range of samples was' subject to a discount. He would regard old, vised samples as a job-lot-. /./;' ' Christopher Sniith,.draper,, also gave .•''/'Other witnesses-were 'beirig 'raised' by Mr.',-Myers,-.his .Honour' said ; lie thought enough had . been, said to prove: the facts. - 'Mr-; .therefore, .did -not 'call further evidence. ' >Mr; , .-'Myers'|-stated : that;:he did not intend to call any witnesses: - w ,' \ Argument ..will.' ho h'eard :this 'morn- //-•;;'■' ,V//./-:'.

AN ACENT'S CLAIM. PRINCIPAL'S COUNTERCLAIM. ; -:/The '.heanng; of, Hhe claim of Heriiy Hastings Cramp against Charles Edwin AVaters for £200 125.; salary and business expenses, was concluded'yesterday 'before the" ,; 'CSitsfJustice:;;(Sir .'Robert Stout). . Mr.; A. .Blair appeared for th'e plaintiff aid Mr.- W; H. .D. Bell for the defendant: • _ .' • /' plaintiff, who t is, now. in business on ■iiis own; accoiin't.ja's ;'a merchant 5 in Wellington,. was formerly New Zealand agent for.the defendant,. who .carries on business in,Sydney,'.as .C..E. Waters and Company. The agency ; was in term's -of an - agreement mado in -April, 1907, and it was alleged that defendant terminated the without due notice on- January 31, 1908. Plain,tiff's claim- of £200 "12s, was; made up of balance,of' salary (at £500 a yea.r), extra travelling expenses, office furni-, turo,-another company's claim regarding goods paid by plaintiff, and income tax, 1 (£l6 -.lOs.^-: i,'/The-'defendant rebutted these claims and ' alleged that the plaintiff had been guilty, of negli - gence, causing loss arid, trouble, that he had visited Sydney, without permission and had therefore been lawfully discharged,: but- was temporarily re-en-gaged. The defendant counter-claimed £59, lis. Id., for ' salary advanced to plaintiff. -, .-His Honour, after: hearing both parties examined, • intimated that ho would ■go through* tlie voluminous correspondence which had been handed in before. 'giving ;■ his ■/ decision. ; ; v .