Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered that though Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act protects his Department against any action for damages or otherwise from importers whose goods may have been improperly detained and taxed during the period from 1st October to the date of the referee's judgment ordering them to he deleted from the Board of Trade lists, 1728W nevertheless, on grounds of equity, it is incumbent upon the Department to consent to a refund of such duties, if claimed; whether, in particular, his attention has been drawn to the complaint of a firm who paid a sum amounting to over £2,900 in duties on consignments of sugar milk, which the referee has decided to have been improperly listed by the Board of Trade under the Key Industries Schedule; and whether he is prepared to recommend a refund of this sum, especially in view of Section 31 of The Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, whose provisions are declared by the Safeguarding of Industries Act to obtain in cases of disputes under its Section 11?
Mr. YOUNGI have been asked to reply to this question. As has been stated in reply to previous questions, in view of the terms of Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, these sums are not repayable, and I regret that I am unable to make any exception in the case of the firm referred to I may point out that the application of Section 31 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, to disputes under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, in which the Commissioners of Customs are concerned, does not extend to disputes under Section 1 (5) relating to disputes in regard to the lists issued by the Board of Trade.