asked the Minister for Finance if he will state under what statutory authority a Customs duty is being charged on imported cornflour, and the amount of the duty; and whether cornflour imported for manufacturing purposes may be imported free of duty.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imported Cornflour.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the quantity and value of cornflour imported during the nine months ended 31st December, 1935, and the amount of Customs duty paid thereon.
I propose to take questions Nos. 10 and 11 together. Cornflour is regarded as falling within the scope of the Customs duty chargeable at the rate of 3/- per cwt. on imported starch under the Finance Act, 1935, Section 11 and Second Schedule, reference No. 5. The relative charging section makes no provision for importation without payment of duty of articles intended for manufacturing purposes, and, in view of the fact that this is a revenue producing duty, it has been deemed inexpedient to take advantage of the provisions of Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1932, for the purpose of allowing importation free of duty of goods liable to duty as starch except in cases where such goods are required for the manufacture of articles intended for export. No separate statistics are available in respect of imports of cornflour. Goods of this description are required to be entered under the heading of "Maize Products, other sorts," the imports of which during the nine months ended the 31st December, 1935, amounted to 19,733 cwts., value £13,188. These figures include 2,707 cwts. of maize products (including cornflour) on which Customs duty amounting to £406 was charged as "starch " under the Finance Act, 1935, Section 11 and Second Schedule, reference No. 5.
Do I understand from the Minister that where cornflour is imported as a raw material for further manufacturing purposes here that it is not admitted free of duty?
Yes, where these manufactured products are intended for export.
Is the Minister aware that this tax is imposing a very considerable amount of expenditure on certain confectionery manufacturers and others in the country and that it is to a very large extent further raising the cost of production in the case of Irish manufacturers here?
I do not know whether the Deputy is justified in applying the term "very considerable expenditure" to an item of £406.
Arising out of the Minister's reply I would like to ask him whether it was present to his mind when he imposed that tax in this House that the definition of "starch" included cornflour, and whether when he presented that Financial Resolution to this House he informed it that within the category of "starch" came edible products such as cornflour?
I am afraid I should have notice of that question—I should re-examine my conscience.
Would I be doing the Minister an injustice if I said that when he was proposing that tax to the House he never dreamt that "starch" covered cornflour, and, further, that no Deputy in this House ever thought that the term "starch" covered cornflour, believing as they did that the Minister was asking for a duty on a product manufactured in this country used for stiffening collars and not for feeding men?
Most of the Deputy's questions do the Minister an injustice.
The Minister has said that he did not consider that £450 was a very considerable imposition on manufacturers. My information is that in the case of one firm alone the amount payable during the year was greater than that sum. Will the Minister say whether £450 is the duty paid on imported cornflour during the period of nine months ending 31st December, 1935?
The amount which has been charged upon cornflour for the period is £406, not £450. I cannot accept responsibility for what has been said to the Deputy, but he should verify these statements before he puts down a question.
Can the Minister tell us what period is covered by the £406?
I have already told the Deputy that it was for the nine months ending 31st December, 1935.
Arising out of the Minister's statements, I want to ask if he will have the decision of the Revenue Commissioners declaring that cornflour is "starch" for the purposes of the Finance Act, reviewed because in my opinion the Revenue Commissioners have misdirected themselves. Cornflour cannot properly be described as starch within the meaning of the Finance Act which imposed this duty on starch—will the Minister have their definition of that reviewed with a view to their satisfying themselves whether they have exceeded their jurisdiction in the collection of this tariff on edible cornflour?
I am afraid the Department which has been responsible for classifying "cornflour" as "starch" has been the State laboratory, and after all we have to remember in connection with this, things are not sold sometimes for what they seem.
But is not that exactly the same analogy that would be applied to find that potatoes are "starch"? I submit to the Minister that levying a starch duty on potatoes would be a travesty of the Financial Resolution.
My answer to that is that potatoes have not yet been charged with the duty on starch.
May I submit to the Minister that this arose out of the fact that laundry men were using it as a substitute for starch and that it was not really intended at all to apply to confectionery manufacturers in this country?
I am afraid it will hardly carry conviction to the Deputy but the fact is that when they charged a duty on starch it was starch.
Deputy Morrissey. Question 12.
Does the Minister suggest that confectionery manufacturers in the country are using starch instead of cornflour in their materials?
Next question.