Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 23 November 1910

Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia) . - This undoubtedly is a matter which should be left very largely in the hands of the Department, because, if any one thing is more calculated to change than another, it is the form in which some goods are made up. In many cases the article contained in the box is of little value, but the box' itself obtains a considerable value from the attractive way in which it is put up. Many persons buy an article of low value in order to obtain a fancy box.

Senator Vardon - My definition exactly covers that case.

Senator DE LARGIE - No; I do not think it provides for the case where there is no stamp on the article in the box.

Senator Vardon - " Which is intended to add a market value to the goods which they enclose."

Senator DE LARGIE - It may not increase the value of the article, but it may give a value to the box. The article may be of trifling value, but the box may be of much greater value. Whenever a new pattern for a box is discovered, or a new idea is embodied in a box, the Department should have the power to declare that it is a fancy box, and therefore liable to a higher duty. When a box is printed with the maker's name, and cannot be used for another purpose, it should be allowed to come in, but a plain box of a new style, or of new material, which could be used for another purpose, ought not to be admitted duty free. So far as it goes, Senator Vardon's definition is very good, but it does not prevent fancy boxes containing comparatively valueless articles being imported, and so evading the higher duty. That is why I think the matter of definition should be left to the Department.

Suggest corrections