Skip to main content


Volume 155: debated on Thursday 15 June 1922

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


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Messrs. Hulse and Company, of Woodlesford, who imported certain naphthalene balls, were compelled to deposit an amount of 33⅓ per cent. on same, whilst the same substance in the nature of flakes was allowed in free, seeing that at Goole the substance, both in balls and flakes, is admitted free, and, in view of their inability to obtain the refund of the money deposited, can he take some prompt action to give them satisfaction; and will he issue instructions to his officials telling them clearly what articles are dutiable and what are not?

The naphthalene balls and naphthalene flakes in question were submitted for expert examination, as the result of which the balls were found to be comprised of naphthalene of dutiable quality, whereas the flakes were found not to be of that quality. In these circumstances, the duty cannot be refunded.

Would it not be better to arrange that a duty should be levied on all naphthalene, thus avoiding one port levying duties, while another port passes the same goods free?