§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Customs have recently issued an order imposing a duty of 7s. per cwt upon apricot pulp which contains no added sugar, that this article contains over 80 per cent. of water, and that fresh apricots when dried yield one-fifth of their weight, and consequently that the pulp will now pay relatively five times as much duty as dried apricots, and this notwithstanding that neither of these articles contain any added sugar whatever; under what authority has this order been issued, and whether all fruit pulp free from added sugar imported or produced in this country will be subject to similar conditions.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)This is a question of the Fruit Duty, not of the Sugar Duty. Dried and otherwise preserved apricots and apricot pulp are chargeable with duty at 7s. a cwt. under the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, because apricots are a kind of plum. Duty has long been levied on dried apricots, but apricot pulp has hitherto escaped duty under the idea that it contained sugar, plums preserved in sugar being exempt from duty under the above-mentioned Act. This exemption clearly could not continue after the reimposition of the sugar duty, and it was therefore repealed by the resolution agreed to by the House and embodied in the Finance Bill. From recent analyses in the Customs laboratory, apricot pulp appears to contain no added sugar and very little (at most 10 or 11 per cent.), if any, added water 418 No doubt a pound of pulp contains much less fruit than a pound of dried apricots, but the fact that a particular method of preservation retains the natural juices in the fruit does not afford any legal ground of exemption from duty. I am, however, considering whether a lower rate of duty might not properly be charged on preserved than on dried apricots.
§ MR. KEARLEYAre we to regard this as a strictly new duty which has never been before the House at all?
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHNo, I have said it is embodied in the Finance Bill.
§ MR. KEARLEYI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain the differentiation of the sugar duty on canned peaches and other fruits preserved in syrup, which are assessed on the basis of 1s. per cwt. of the nett weight of the contents of the tins, while canned apricots, also preserved in syrup containing a like amount of sugar, are now being charged a duty of 7s. per cwt.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHCanned apricots, as I have already explained, are subject to the Fruit Duty. Canned peaches and the other fruit assessed at 1s. the cwt. by General Order 45 of 1901 are not subject to it; therefore the Sugar Duty only is charged on the sugar in each can.
§ MR. KEARLEYCan the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between an apricot and a peach, that one is subject to one treatment and the other to another treatment?
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHAccording to the very best authorities I have consulted, it was decided many years ago that an apricot was a plum and a peach was not.