HC Deb 29 July 1958 vol 592 cc115-6W
Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Charles G. Brown, Aberdeen, who, in circumstances of which he is aware, was deprived of a gift camera by the Customs and Excise; if he is aware that the Customs and Excise, in the course of subsequent correspondence with the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, have admitted that there was no suggestion that Mr. Brown knowingly evaded Customs charges legally due on the camera, but that, notwithstanding this, the Customs and Excise continue to deprive Mr. Brown of the camera, whereby injustice is being done to Mr. Brown; and if he will investigate the case.

Mr. Simon

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there has been no injustice. The camera was seized by the Customs only after Mr. Brown had declined to pay the Customs charges legally due, and he can still retrieve it by paying them.

Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will so amend the regulations as to ensure that where imported goods, suspected of being dutiable, are seized by Her Majesty's Customs officers to be submitted to expert valuers, the names of the valuers be disclosed to the person alleged to be liable for the duty and that no duty be payable without that person being given the opportunity of submitting the evidence of a valuer nominated by himself.

Mr. Simon

No. Responsibility for ensuring that ad valorem duty is correctly charged rests upon the Customs. Independent advice on value is sometimes necessary to assess private importations, but it would be improper for the Customs to expose their advisers to direct controversy with the public. It is open to importers to submit their own evidence and, in the event of an unresolved dispute, to require arbitration by a Referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor.