The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. In the cause of Truth and Justice we strive. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1871.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 903, 21 December 1871, Page 2

The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. In the cause of Truth and Justice we strive. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1871.

.At the annual general meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce two suggestions were made by the special oommittoo appointed to oonoiirlor tho tariff and customs regulations, which are well worthy of consideration by the Government. The following are the amendments proposed : —" First: That sections 21 and 22 of the Customs Regulation Act, 1858, and 13 of Amendment Act, 1868, be so amended as to provide, that in case of dispute between the collectors and importers as to whether any article is dutiable or not, or as to what rate of duty should be levied upon any article such dispute shall, on the demand of the importer, and at the importer's expense, be referred to two experts — one to be chosen by the Commissioner of Customs, the other by the importer —whose decisiou shall be final ; the importer or his agent to have the right to lay before these experts such evidence, and to offer such arguments in regard to the point in dispute as he may desire. Second: That coasting vessels carrying goods under bond from one port to another be not allowed to clear out at the port where such goods are discharged, until bond has been given that charges of duty for deficient quantities will be paid by the ship." With respect to the first suggestion, we believe that no little inconvenience has arisen at various ports within the colony, and that an amendment of the Ant in this particular is highly desir. able. The present regulations for the settlement of disputes between the importer and the customs as to the rate of duty leviable are not altogether satisfactory, and, as endless disputes as to the interpretation of the tariff are sure to arrive, so long as it is found necessary to collect a varied scale of duties upon nearly every article imported, some "eady means should be made available of having these vexatious questions quickly and satisfactorily settled.

The secoud suggestion is scarcely of les3 importance, as it is a matter of constant complaint that consignees of goods shipped coastwise under bond are surcharged with duty on spirits and other goods specially liable to deficiencies arising from leakage, breakage or pillage. In the event of deficiency arising out of the latter cause, the ship should be undoubtedly responsible, but in the very common case of breakage and unavoidable leakage in transit, the imposition of duty is a considerable hardship. Tt would be as reasonable to insist that the owners of bonded goods consumed by fire

should be liable to pay duty, as to enforce it when such goods are wasted or destroyed while on board ship in transit from one port to another. Yet consignees are in all such instances liable to pay duty, although it is not attempted to enforce it in any other case than that of coastwise removal. But, if it is deemed a hardship that a consignee should pay duty occasionally on a slightly larger quantity of spirits or other merchandise than he may actually receive, how much greater is the hardship in the event of a vessel and her entire cargo, consisting exclusively of duty paid goods, being lost. The exports coastwise from this port consist solely of merchandise upon which no duty is leviable or upon which it has been paid, in other words, shipments under bond to Charleston, Brighton, Karamea, or other coastal settlements are not permitted, no officer of customs being stationed at any of these ports. It may happen, and has happened, thqt a cargo consisting largely of spirits, upon which the duty more than doubles the original cost, is entirely lost, when owing to the present customs regulations the loss, accruing to the shipper or consignee must be unnecessarily increasedThe loss of the steamer City of Dunedin in the early days of Hokitika as a settlement, on her passage from Dunedin to that port, and tbe recent loss of the ketch Rose near the Karamea, on her passage from Westport to Brighton, are striking instances of the loss that may accrue where shippers are compelled to embark goods duty paid, whilo the Customs Regulations, in the event of the vessel foundering, will not admit of the duty being refunded. We take it that the object of the Regulations should not be more than to secure that duties are collected upon all dutiable goods that pass into consumption. Not to refund the duty when such goods are totally wasted or destroyed is not proper, and becomes an especial hardship when numerous minor settlements on our seaboard can only be supplied by cargoes upon which the entire duty leviable has been paid. We should gladly see some ameadment introduced in the present regulations which would remove the liability of traders to become the victims of such an oppressive mju.it ice.