Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 11

Financial Resolutions—Report Stage. - Resolution No. 5—Customs.

I move:

That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 5.

I may explain that the effect of the changes contemplated by this Resolution is to simplify that large number of duties which have been in operation upon apparel of various kinds, other than boots and shoes. Heretofore, there have been some 200 separate items of clothing and wearing apparel subject to duty, and the code is becoming very complicated and difficult for traders as well as for the officers of the Revenue Commissioners. It has been decided, therefore, to attempt to simplify the classifications of the articles subject to duty, and that is the main purpose of this Resolution. It does, of course, effect certain changes in the rates of duty for the purpose of that simplification, but its main design is to effect that simplification, and I think it will be welcomed by traders and importers generally.

Could the Minister say where it is proposed to alter the rates?

I can get it for the Deputy, if it is desired.

Of course, I do not want to delay unduly the Ministers or to attempt to propound conundrums which they cannot reasonably be expected to answer at a moment's notice, but in connection with the codification of the apparel duties, might I suggest that the Minister should cause to be circulated a white paper, such as is sometimes circulated with the Finance Bill, explaining the reference and the changes which it is proposed to make? It would be of assistance, for instance, if a schedule of the tariffs, which it is proposed to repeal, were set out and a reference provided for where the tariffs, which are provided under sub-section (6), are to be found because, in sub-section (6), certain articles are excluded from the categories contained in the Schedule because they are liable to duty under other heads. I sympathise with the Minister's difficulty in trying to codify any existing system of law, and it may very well mean that this attempt at codification will make confusion worse confounded unless we proceed very cautiously at the enactment stage.

In a cursory glance, I have already discovered one thing which is certainly going to appear ambiguous to merchants. Part III says:—

"This Part of this Schedule does not apply to any article chargeable under Part II of this Schedule."

Part II of the Schedule describes as liable to duty articles which are

"all garments, whether complete or incomplete, which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners have, before importation, been substantially worn or otherwise used outside Saorstát Eireann by a person other than the importer and the members of his family or household."

I take it that that is meant to be a description of secondhand clothes imported for sale. Part III, however, which does not apply to any of those clothes, which I understood meant secondhand clothes, sets out that there shall be 5/- per article chargeable on proofed overcoats and other proofed coats; 10/- per overcoat or per suit, as the case may be, on overcoats and suits which are made wholly or mainly of woven tissue and are not proofed, suitable for wear by men or by boys; 4/- per article on coats, jackets and trousers of similar type; and 2/- on waistcoats; and so forth. Is it proposed to remove the minimum rates of duty on secondhand clothes and to go back to the old system of ad valorem duty on secondhand clothes which broke down, as far as I am aware, on a previous occasion, and which had to be altered to a specific duty per garment?

If the Deputy will look further, he will see that Part IV applies also in respect of goods that are chargeable with duty under Part II, and the minimum duty specified there will operate. With regard to the suggestion that a more elaborate explanation of the effect of the changes brought about by the Resolution should be given in a memorandum circulated to Deputies, I think that that can be done. I admit that the note circulated already gives very little information, and I will see what we can do to meet the Deputy's wishes in that regard before the Finance Bill comes up for discussion.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share