§ 84. Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for drawbacks or refunds on goods exported, made or partly made from real or artificial silk, have boon made up to the end of October; and what is the total amount of money repaid or paid over to exporters or traders by the Government?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLPayments of drawbacks in respect of exports of silk and artificial silk goods amounted to £56,424 up to 31st October last. I regret that I am unable to state the number of claims for drawback received up to the same date, as this figure could only be ascertained by detailed inquiry at Customs and Excise offices throughout the country.
§ Mr. HARRISAm I right in assuming that there are a great number of small claims, and that the sums distributed are small sums paid to a great number of people, causing a lot of trouble and labour?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe hon. Member seems to have more information on the subject than I have.
§ 90. Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a Gobelin tapestry imported by Messrs. Trollope and Colls, of London, has been held up at the port of Newhaven for several weeks by the Customs authorities, who now demand a duty of £270 13s. 1d., which they assert is a third of the total value of the tapestry; and, as the article contains only a few pounds of silk, what he proposes to do in the matter?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am informed that it is not the case that this article 2514 has been held up by the Customs authorities for several weeks. It was not imported until the 11th November, and was not presented to the Customs until the 20th, when the officers were asked by the importer's agents what duty would be payable. The officers stated that the article was liable to duty at 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. Since then no action has been taken by the importer to clear the goods. If the importer desire to contest the charge to duty, it is open to him to appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
§ Mr. LIVINGSTONEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a document demanding that duty here now?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not aware of that particular point, and, consequently, am not able to appreciate its significance, but I certainly propose to give my personal attention to the cases which have been raised in regard to works of art.
§ Mr. LIVINGSTONEDoes the right hon. Gentleman defend the imposition of a duty amounting to £270 odd on a few pounds of old French silk?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will, at the proper time, enter into a discussion of the actual working of this Act, but I say without any hesitation that in the months that have passed since the Act came into operation a number of subsidiary cases, which were not contemplated at the time the duty was put into force and could not have been foreseen, have arisen, and will, in my opinion, require comprehensive treatment before the next Finance Bill is passed.
§ Mr. LIVINGSTONEDoes this mean that the Government are willing to put a tax on, say, masterpieces of painting, because they contain a few ounces of silk?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe question of luxury taxation—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot now go into this large question.