DUMPING ALLEGED

Evening Star, Issue 21751, 20 June 1934, Page 6

DUMPING ALLEGED

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUIT Dumping of Australian canned fruit into New Zealand was alleged by local representatives of the industry at a meeting of Dunedin manufacturers yesterday. Members of the association were convinced that a clear case of dumping had been proved and that action was necessary. Mr W. Stevenson introduced the matter, and after referring to subsidies granted to the industry in Australia produced figures which showed that half the canned fruit of Australia was being sold at a loss. , ■ ' Mr E. F. Lord claimed that the present tariff policy was not acting in the interests of the fruit industry in New Zealand. For a number of years past, he stated, Australian canners and growers had benefited considerably from bounties and subsidies paid to them by their Governments, both Federal and State. He would confine himself to costs and selling prices, taking his figures from authentic sources—-the report of Development and Migration Commission (1929) and the Sugar Concession Committee’s report (19d2). in considering any request for protection against the dumping of goods by another country the Government must satisfy itself that the selling prices were not lower than those charged for a similar commodity for home consumption in the exporting country. It such were the case the Government was perhaps justified iu retaining the existing duties.- But when the Government of the exporting country subsidised that industry from public funds a different aspect was put on the question. It practically meant that the Australian canners and growers were selling under cost and were being reimbursed for their losses by the subsidies and bounties from other sources. For instance, in 1928 the f.o.b. costs of apricots and peaches had been 7s t Jd and 7s 4Jd re-

spectively for 30oz cans, and; the f.0.b.prices for export to the XJnited Hingdom had been 6s 9sd and 5s 7d respectively. The prices for export to New Zealand in 1929 (8s and 7s 3d) had been considered satisfactory. In 1933 the Control Board had substantially reduced the h.c. values to apricots 6* ,3d, peaches 6s 3d, and pears 6s 9d. ; This year the export prices f.o.b. were apricots 6s 6d, peaches 6s, and pears 6s 6d; and the hie. values on which duty was payable were apricots 6s, peaches 5s 9d, and pears 6s 3d. The costs fop 1934 had not been materially altered. Mr Lord submitted that a clear case of dumping had been made out, and stated that only by virtue of the subsidies granted were the manufacturers being reimbursed. The themselves in Australia received' assistance in the form of free transport of certain materials and low freight rates. “It is actually impossible to get the amounts received by the Australian industry. Over a period of eight years it had been estimated at £890,000,” said Mr Stevenson. He added that the information had not been in the hands of local firms when the Tariff Commission was in session. The Chairman (Mr James Hogg) said that it was quite evident to him" that there was reason for action on behalf of the New Zealand canning industries and fruitgrowers. He thought that the case should be placed before the Minister of Customs before the new tariffs came down, and he moved the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:—“ While Australia may be sheltering behind the real definition of dumping, which says that the import price must be less than the home consumption value, yet this association is satisfied from evidence put before it that Australian canned fruits are being sold for less than real cost, largely because of the subsidies and concession* granted to the Australian canning industry by the State and Federal Governments, and that therefore the New Zealand canned fruit. trade is to all intents and purposes being subjected to very serious dumping from Australia. » It was also resolved to ask the Manufacturers’ Federation to take the matter up with the Government.