ERRONEOUS DECLARATION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 74, 20 December 1919, Page 10

ERRONEOUS DECLARATION

A CUSTOMS I'HOSECUTION. By Telegraph—Prees Association. Dunoclin, December 19. A case in. which a young woman employed by Waters. Bitchie and Co. was charged with making an erroneous declaration to tho Customs Department came before Mr. ,T. H. Bartholomew, S.M., in tho City Police Court to-day, when Flora Mac Donald was charged that she did unlawfully make a certain declaration under the Customs Act, 1913, which was erroneous within the meaning of Section 211 of tlic-Acfr, and contrary to the form of statute. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. C. Maegresor, K.C., who represented tho Customs Department, said defendant wns in.liho employ of Waters, Bitchie and Co, and was appointed in May, 191S, as tho firm's ngent to attend to Customs business and sig'n the usual forme. On September 5, Miss Mac Donald passed an entry k> tho Customs for two cases of furs, which had been imported from Melbourne.' In order to ascertain Uie rate of duty it was necessary to fill in the import entry a declara-tion of the place where the goods were manufactured or produced. The cases had been entered a.s containing goods purchased in Australia. Thev were examined end found to contain the plod's described,\and were delivered on deposit of the sum of ,?M to cover any po-sible preferential duly whicli might be discovered to bo duo. Id was necessary to obtain a cerlifi.cnte showing the place of origin, and inquiries were mado from time to time as to whether Wiis- certificate had come to hand On November 5, a letter was produced whicihi stated that most of the goods in the r<vses were from China. Tt wns qiiit" clear Mint an erroneous declaration had been made. Counsel for the accused, Mr. J. C. Stephens, said that with the information that came to ihand the Customs Department had I'ppn fullv pntitled to ask for an explanation, and the only complaint the firm had was khat no communication was mado with them other than the official form, wihie.li in itself did not apnrise the find of any such serious dereliction* of duty as war: now charged. As n matter of fact, the heads nf the firm knew nothing- whatever of the matter until they received' a summons. ITe pointed out thej lihe provision for tlio •agent stating tho origin of the nrliclo imported read, "to Mie best of his knowledge, information, and belief." .At thn lime the entry was passed, the defendant knew nothing of the existence of fli? letter stntinsr fchnt some, of the eonds camo from China, and she had pn.«fd (lie entries withouli a certificate of oriein on earlier occasions, declaring "Australia" when hhe had reason to believe that their origin was Australia, on the understanding that she obtained the certificate of origin and paid the deposit. Counsel stated further that the obvious intention of Secta'on 211 was to protect tihe revenue, while in this case the Department had practically ffl per cent, more than Hie actual duty payable. Furthermore, Waters. Kitohie nnd Co. bought thpso proat skins f.o.b. Melbourne, and sold them f.o.b. Melbourne, so (ihat duty would have been payable by the purchafer, and there' was no reason in the world why they should have atteinpiwl to evade liability. The Magistrate, in reviewing iiha evidence, snid that accused had bsen nut m a very false position by having "lo accept too much resnonsibilitv! and it was nbvious that she did not fully| appreciate fie serious nature of thesn declarations. Through (;he somewhat loose business methods of he.r employers, she had apparently rrrnrded the whole matter as",-, mere formality. It was a matter of regret that she should have been before the Court, and he considered it would be very unfortunate if ho had to convict her.

>t.v. Macsregor said Hie view of the Department was that two separate offences iha;l been committed, and' both were due to carelessness. The Government could, however, remit I'n." wliolo or any part of the penalty. The. Department wanted it to'bc recognised flint Hie making of these declarations was by no means a perfunctory matter. The Magistrate: I am sorry the Department cannot see its way 'to wi!:!/draw the charge in view of "the position which has developed. A second charge arising oiit of iho same declaration was : then pi'eferred against the firm of Waters, Ritchio and Co,

JJr. Stephens entered a plea of The. Magistrals said there had been no siißjestion of any attempt to defraud on the part of the firm, but, at tho same time, the defendant had no cause for complaint against the Department. The penalties under the Customs Act were fixed on a .lush scale to protect tihe Department against intentional fraud and inaccuracy, but as there had been neither one nor the other in this case he was.obliged to fix tho minimum penalty at ,£2o in the case of the girl and also the firm. He resetted 'having to follow this course in respect to tho girl.