CLAUSE II.—(Release of imported goods.) (Hansard, 27 November 1945)

§ Colonel Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

The Committee will, I am sure, regard this Clause as an admirable one since it attempts to eliminate a certain amount of red tape. The purpose of this Clause, as I see it, is to enable importers to go ahead and distribute the goods into this country, without having them held up whilst arguments and discussions go on relating to the precise kind of duty to be charged. We had during the war people 1180 saying, "Let us get a move on and we can settle up the paper work afterwards," and in general that probably has worked extremely well. No one wants action to be held up while paper procedure is argued over when probably a better decision can be reached when the matter is not treated so urgently, but therein to my mind lies a serious danger, and I am sorry to see no provision is made in regard to the danger in this Clause or in all its Subsections.

8.30 p.m.

The danger is that there is no time limit for the operation of the delayed Clauses. It says: Where it is impracticable -immediately to ascertain whether any or what customs duty is payable … the Commissioners may … allow the goods to be delivered upon payment of a deposit. Subsection (3) says: Where the goods are allowed to be delivered under this Section, the Commissioners shall, when they have determined the amount of duty which in their opinion is payable, give to the importer or his agents a notice specifying that amount. I suggest there ought if possible to be some time limit between the permission to deliver the goods and the presentation of the final figure which the commissioners agree upon. Otherwise, we shall have what happened so often in the Service Departments and other Departments during the war, of paper work stretching back several years into the past with numerous changes in personnel, making it difficult to reach a final conclusion in the matter. These delays are all the more irritating where the amount involved is small. But it is the question of the amount that is involved which is another defect in this otherwise admirable Clause. It says in lines b and 7 that the goods may be delivered upon the giving by the importer or his agent of security for payment of the duty by deposit of money or otherwise to their satisfaction. That does not give any indication—and I would like some explanation on this point —whether the deposit is to be in inverse ratio to the trustworthiness of the importer or his agent, or whether it is to bear some relation to the figure which it is estimated will be finally decided upon. If the former, then the amount of money to be paid when the final decision is made may be very great, or if the latter, it may be 1181 some trifling amount which will cause a good deal of irritation, and it will be a long time before its exact extent is decided upon. I do not wish to delay the Committee further, except just to draw the attention of the Committee to those two points and to express the hope that some satisfaction may be given regarding them.

§ The Solicitor-General

I think the answer to the hon. Member's points is really to be found in this: This practice as laid down in Clause II is, in point of fact, the actual practice that has hitherto been followed by the authorities. The reason for Clause II being in the Bill at all is that, having followed their practice for some considerable time recently, they have had occasion to doubt whether there was statutory justification for their doing so; in other words, whether there was any statutory justification for their departing from the strict enforcement of the requirements in favour of allowing some latitude. Therefore, this Clause is introduced to make that practice legal.

With regard to the two specific points which were mentioned, one the time limit and the other the amount, I would say this. It is extremely difficult to lay down a time limit in these circumstances. It obviously has to depend very much on the circumstances. One has to rely upon a certain amount of mutual good will on both sides, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that before the commissioners can let the importer know what he owes, they have to wait until he furnishes to them the balance of the information which they require. That will be found at the end of Subsection (2): "… and in that event the importer or his agent shall supply the remaining particulars as soon as may be to the Commissioners. So they have to wait for him and send the notice saying how much is payable. In practice, therefore, it depends upon the importer himself. I would urge upon the Committee that it is extremely difficult in circumstances of this kind to lay down a specific rule. It has worked well in the past, before the practice was regularised, and there is no reason to suppose that it will not work perfectly satisfactorily in the future.

With regard to the question of the amount of the security, that again is a matter for the commissioners to determine reasonably having regard to all the circumstances. There may be circumstances, 1182 without trespassing on invidious grounds, in which they think it right and their duty to find a higher security, and that may have some relation to the credit and trustworthiness of the importer. That will be for the commissioners to determine. There again, the practice embodied in the Clause is to determine what is fair and sensible in the circumstances. Sometimes they may be content with less security than others but I ask the Committee to accept that that has to be left to their common sense and fair judgment in the circumstances of each individual case.