ALLEGED SHORT-PAID DUTY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1440, 15 May 1912, Page 8

ALLEGED SHORT-PAID DUTY.

* INTERESTING POINTS RAISED. (3y Telejra-pli— Presa AEsociation.l

Auckland, May 14. Tho hearing of the suit brought by the Minister for Customs against the Waihi Gold Mining Company for ,£IOO7 12s. 10d., alleged to be duo for Customs duty rpon some imported pumps, was continued before Mr. Justico Edwards at tho Supreme Court.

The Hon. J. A. Tole appeared for the Customs Department. Mr. T. Cotter, K.C., who was present on behalf of the company on the previous day, did not appear, and was represented by Mr. C. J. Tutiks.

The cross-examination of Mr. Ridings, Collector of Customs, was continued. He said he took no exception to the admission of the goods free of duty until the Audit Department (ineried the matter, and lie himself had until then no knowledge of it. Had the Audit Department not drawn attention to it, he would have taken no exception to it at all. Hβ was instructed by headquarters to secure the duty, and Mr. C. Rhodes, the local director, refused to pay it. In answer to Mr. Tole, tho witness Eaid Hint he knew of no peremptory clauso compelling Customs officials to examine all goods. They could not examine nil goods. Tho onus v<as upon the importers to give information sufficient for the assessment of the duty, and had the Department known that Iho pumps wore not sinking pumps the duty would have been nearly .£l2llO, instead of .£IOO. There had been very many cases of late for recovery of duly, not by action, but under tho penal clauses. Mr. Tunks said the defendants admitted that the Minister had declared the pumps to be not sinking pumps, and therefore dutiable, thus determining tho dispute upon that point. Mr. Tunks said that ho would at this stage move for nonsuit. His Honour said he would not grant a. non-suit except in very ejear cases. It would Jiot be granted in this ease, but the right, to move Inter would be reserved.

After a brief opening address, Mr Tunks called

Charley Rhodes, attorney to the defendant company, who explained the purpose of tho pumps. Tho pumps were specially designed as sinking pumps for the purpose of umvatering the shaft. llr. Tolo objected to any evidence indicating whether the pumps were sinking pumps, as that had been disposed of. His Honour: "Umvatering tho shaft? What does than mean If it means pumping the water out of the shaft why not say so? It seems a ridiculous word. I never heard it before."

Witness: "It is it perfectly good mining term, your Honour.

The witness continued that largo pumps were quite necessary to enaßlo the sinking- to bo done, and they were now in use. There was never any attempt on the part of the company to escape payment of the duty. The statement of tho company that the pumps were sinking pumps was then, and still was, true, and thcro was no intention of hiking advantage of a. mistake on the part ot the department. His Honour: "That is not implied in anyway. There is no allegation ni' fraud."

The witness was not cross-exiiiiiiiicil, the whole of "his evidence being objected to bv Mr. Tole.

'Mr. Titnks suggested four questions for submission to the jury in each case. However, hi 3 Honour said thai the questions were either of faet or related to facts which, were admitted. The whole question should be settled on a motion for judgment, and the jury should be discharged. The case could be sent to the Appeal Court for a direct settlement, it was obvious that the Full Bench of the Supretae Court was the proper tribunal to deal with it. Mr. Tunks consulted Mr. Rhodes, ami agreed to his Hohour's suggestion. The jury was discharged/arid his Honour made'aii order removing the motion for nnii-S'lit, and the motions fur judgment to the Court of Appeal.