Skip to main content

Motor Industry

Volume 237: debated on Tuesday 25 March 1930

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


asked the President of the Board of Trade how many foreign motor cars have been imported since 1st February; and how that compares with the figure for 1929?

As shown in the current issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," to which I would refer the hon. And gallant Member for details, the total numbers of motor vehicles and chassis, excluding tractors, recorded as imported during the months of February, 1929, and February, 1930, were 2,710 and 1,458 respectively. Data are not available to show how many of these were of foreign manufacture.


asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that cranes for salvaging broken-down motor cars, which are bolted to motor vehicles, have been imported free of duty; and, in view of the law relating to parts or accessories of motor cars and the fact that they are not used except when bolted to motor vehicles, what action does he propose to take?

Representations have been received by the Customs regarding the liability to import duty, as motor car parts or accessories, of certain cranes which are capable of use for salvaging broken down motor cars. The cranes in question however are not made as parts of any particular motor car chassis but can be bolted to any flat surface. They are suitable not only for motor breakdowns but also for general use and it is understood that they are commonly so used. In the circumstances these cranes cannot be regarded as liable to import duty as parts or accessories of motor cars.

In view of the fact that the trade are of opinion that these cranes are only used when bolted to a motor car, are they not obviously part of a motor car under the Act?

I have already stated that that is not the view taken by my advisers.

Is not the percentage of the cranes used for any other purpose so small that such an argument cannot have much weight?