Skip to main content

Chemicals

Volume 149: debated on Monday 19 December 1921

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

40.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of technical knowledge of chemicals on the part of the Customs officials ordinarily concerned with the examination of goods arriving at the various ports throughout the country, it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to detain all parcels of chemicals and to refuse delivery to importers on the ground that inquiries are being made; that the consequent delay, even in the case of goods not dutiable, frequently amounts to weeks; and that it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to ignore any interim complaints which may be made by traders as to the great inconvenience that they are put to by the consequent hold-up of business; and whether he can devise some means whereby a decision may be given on the spot in any cases of this kind which involve only an ordinary working technical knowledge of the commodities in question?

In the case of chemicals entered as not liable to duty, as to which the examining Customs Officer is in doubt whether duty is not chargeable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is necessary to submit a sample for expert opinion by the Government chemist, and this opinion is obtained with the least possible delay. But if the importer wishes to obtain immediate possession of the goods, it is always open to him to do so on deposit of an amount sufficient to cover the duty in the event of the goods being ultimately held to be liable. As decisions are given on various substances, the officers at the ports will become more experienced in deciding liability without the necessity of submitting samples, and the inconvenience complained of will diminish. I am not, however, prepared to incur the expense attendant on the appointment of expert advisers at the various ports.

Is it not a fact that if this kind of thing goes on there will be no drug in the market after this?

Is it not a fact that these complaints are being greatly exaggerated, and that the Act is being administered remarkably well?

It is fully recognised that the period of the initiation of an Act necessarily causes inconveniences. Those inconveniences are being overcome.

Does not "remarkably well" mean that the goods are being kept from getting into this country?