§ 27. Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties caused to wholesalers and retailers dealing with the sale of foreign rubber boots in connection with the increase of tax to 4s. per pair, and that in consequence of no warning being given of the increase in the duty many wholesalers and retailers are suffering financial losses owing to their commitments in respect to orders; and the reasons why no warning was given to those connected with the trade?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)If the hon. Member will refer to the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee made on the 23rd September, 1932 (Cmd. 4176), he will see that warning was given of the possibility of further duties on rubber footwear being recommended in the event of a continuance of abnormal competitive conditions.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSIs it not the case under the existing law that the importer is entitled to add to the contract price the amount of any duty subsequently imposed?
§ Dr. BURGINThe imposition of an increased duty is always a matter for the buyer's account.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIs the hon. Member aware that the increased price kills the market?
33. Mr. WALLACE (for Sir PERCY HARRIS)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements can be made for the exemption from the new duties on rubber boots of goods shipped from the country of origin before the date of the imposition of the duty, where evidence can be substantiated that contracts had been made to sell at prices which made no provision for such duties?
§ Dr. BURGINThere is no provision under which, in the circumstances described by the hon. Member, remission could be granted of the additional duties on rubber boots imposed under the Import Duties Act, 1932. As regards the position of the seller under a contract 20 made before the imposition of a new Customs import duty, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1901.