By PAM GRAHAM
Packages of toilet paper were exhibited in court yesterday in an argument about whether perforating, embossing and printing imported paper constitutes manufacturing.
The case of Carter Holt Harvey versus Cottonsoft continues today in front of Justice Rhys Harrison.
Carter Holt, the country's second-largest listed company, is contending that Cottonsoft, a
Dunedin-based company with four main shareholders, should not be advertising its products as Made in New Zealand.
It is a Fair Trading Act issue usually pursued by the Commerce Commission. But in this case Carter Holt is taking a court action against a competitor that has gained market share. Carter Holt is represented by Ralph Simpson and Cottonsoft by Bill Wilson, QC.
Howard Meadow, a Carter Holt manager of technology and development, and Greg Gavegan, Cottonsoft's quality assurance supervisor, appeared as witnesses yesterday.
Wilson said he would argue today that the products were produced in New Zealand and explore what constitutes a change in form, or function, of a product. At issue was how much a product made from one ingredient could change.
Wilson said he would argue that an injunction was not necessary.
The use of the words "Made in New Zealand" would no longer be an issue if Cottonsoft used words such as "converted in New Zealand".
Justice Harrison said "converted" suggested that goods could were stolen and perhaps "made in New Zealand from imported paper" would be better. He commended dialogue to the parties.
Cottonsoft imports jumbo rolls of paper from countries such as Indonesia whereas Carter Holt has invested in manufacturing in New Zealand and makes a range of pulp, paper, and packaging products.
Cottonsoft argues it does more than package the imported paper. Its products have gained market share in the middle and low end of the toilet paper market. Carter Holt's Sorbent brand is at the top of the market and its Purex brand competes in lower-priced categories.
