§ 15. Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that consignments of fancy glass bangles drawn from solid glass rods have been declared by the officers of his Department to be dutiable under the Key Industries Schedule as lamp-blown glass-ware, in spite of declaration as to the process of manufacture, which indicate that lamp-blown glass-ware cannot be used for snaking these articles; and whether, in view of the inconvenience which is being caused to the trade by the prolongation of a dispute over the liability to duty and no similar goods being manufactured in this country, he will take steps to get the decision rectified without delay?
Mr. WEBBThe question of the liability of the goods mentioned has been under discussion. The Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs have taken the view that they are liable to 1946 duty under the heading "lamp-blown ware," as that heading has been consistently interpreted since the passing of the Act. If the importers still desire to challenge that view, it is open to them to have recourse to an independent referee, in accordance with Section 11 of the Act.
§ Mr. HOGGEWould the right hon. Gentleman just say what is the difference, and whether the Board of Trade takes the view that everything, glass-blown or otherwise, of this sort is liable?
§ Mr. HANNONAlso for the sake of clarity, is it not obvious that it is the duty of the Board of Trade to protect British manufacturers against the foreigner?
Captain BENNCould not the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will take an early opportunity of repealing this ridiculous Act?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for debate.