§ 43. Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the sum of £14,056 collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act represents deposits which traders have had to pay in order to secure their goods pending a settlement of dispute as to the precise amount of duty leviable; whether the deposit system has been encouraged by His Majesty's Customs officials; whether the deposits paid have in many cases proved to be far in excess of the legitimate duty when obtained; whether a case has arisen in which a deposit of over £650 was demanded in respect of goods, of which it is alleged the duty should not properly exceed £10; whether he can inform the House with regard to the October figures; what is the approximate net amount, independent of the cost of collection, which the Exchequer is actually to secure; and can he state the total amount received from 1st October to 10th December?
Mr. YOUNGThe sum of £14,056, collected under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to the 28th October, represents actual receipts of duty and does not include the deposits to which the hon. Member refers. The deposit system is brought to the notice of importers in their own interests by the Customs in cases of doubtful liability in order that they may obtain immediate delivery of the goods if they so desire. Such deposits must naturally be sufficient to cover estimated full liability, but I am not aware of the actual case to which the hon. Member refers. The net amount of duty received in October cannot be stated, inasmuch as the cost of collection 378 of this duty is merged in the general cost of the Customs Service. The total amount of duty received from the 1st October to the 10th December is £44,000.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELWould not the figures that the hon. Gentleman has show that the increased cost of the administration of the Customs since the passing of the Act has much more than swallowed up this alleged advantage of £44,000?
Mr. YOUNGI should require notice for a more careful analysis of the figures before I could answer that question, but speaking on the spur of the moment I should say not.
§ Major MACKENZIE WOODDoes not the hon. Gentleman think this deposit system necessitates a great deal more capital for business than before?
Mr. YOUNGI believe the use of the deposit system is largely also specially applicable to the transition period. When the inconveniences have been overcome, probably importers will find that it is necessary to make less use of it.
§ Mr. KILEYWhen the importers are called upon to deposit 33⅓ per cent. of the value of the goods, how can they sell those goods without knowing what they have to pay?