HC Deb 15 May 1922 vol 154 cc61-2W
Mr. HOLMES

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have been heard by the Referee appointed for the hearing of these complaints; and in how many cases has the Referee held that the article, the subject of the complaint, has been improperly included in the Schedule of dutiable articles?

Mr. BALDWIN

The answer to the first part of the question is thirteen, but in two cases judgment has not yet been given. The answer to the second part is five.

Major M. WOOD

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many chemicals have been removed from the list of articles dutiable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act after the duty has been paid, and that as the result of this importers have been left with large stocks on which they cannot obtain return of the duty paid; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to enable him to repay the duty in cases where the Referee decides that, owing to the action of the Board of Trade, the duty was improperly exacted?

Mr. BALDWIN

A number of items have been removed from the list; I am not aware what stocks of these are now held by importers; the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HOLMES

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of the duties which have been collected by the Customs upon articles now held by the referee to have been improperly included in the Schedule to Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether the amount of duty now shown to have been wrongfully levied by the Customs will be repaid to the importers of the articles upon which these duties were levied?

Mr. YOUNG

The amount of Key Industry Duty collected in respect of articles held by the referee to have been improperly included in the lists issued by the Board of Trade under Subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act amounted to;£ 10,249. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out that the Sub-section above mentioned provides that, in such cases, the amendment of the lists shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. The duty so paid is not, therefore, repayable.