under it (see 253028)-
I doubt if Ord: 39 of 94 affects that object or rather there appears to me tibe a conflict of Authorities on the point-
It will be seew that although "Petiolerem Pas or Betioleum Fuel an exempted IS. 3 of the Ord: from the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 14, 15 9 16 of Ord 8 of 18739 ales from the Regulations, they are not excepted from $ 8 of Ord 8 of '13 under
73
which the your may make byelaws for regulating the Place or Places at which ships carrying Dangerand Goods are to be moored.., I are to land their Cargo, & for regulating the time & mode
off the precautions to be taken on such landing".
as being
"Producti of Petroleum" they still continue to be " dangerous goods within the meaning of the Ord" (see Sections 506 of Ord 8 of 1873) for the above reasons I do not thich Ord: 39 of '99 has done what is required, but should we not I now take expert adura
to me rether lichnical for
? With reference to 25302
on this Ord: which seems
iLo
lagnew to tackle.
send to H.O. copy of Ord стру дрога 39 of 69 (with the previous Sedes Regulations pr convenience of refernce) saying that in view of
their letter the Gour
uns instructed that
Petroleum Tar should be exempted from the Rules & Regulations under the Hongkong Dangerous Goods Ord: 1873 & that the Ord: should
be amended accordingly-
290
Say that Ord 39 of 99 was accordingly passed with this object, but that to effect the stject desired of to avoid conflict of authorities within the Ords, it appears necessary that Section II of Ord 8 of 73 which defines "Aetioleum" as
as including
ary
" Moduch of Petroleum" "should be amended
[9 also that Sections 3 of Ord 39 should be amend
second thoughts :: if the definition by providing that the provisions of $8 of Ords of
73 Shustid be added to the passion Sections
are declared to be inapplicable
right cudit
us at this
T.CM
§ & 1. (x)-~12435--2000-1-99
22817--3000-10-99
whose provisions
to "Lubricating oils, petioleum this or petioleum ful
And enclose a
Offrial
copy of The Shell Transport Cry's
anding that the Chief Inspection of
letter acking
Explouver may be kind enough to state whether
the Sofs is right in assuming that "Liquid Fuel' "' Petroleums Fuel (in which case
is the same as
it showed of comme be viimilarly exempted
o
the
from the operation of the Sections Dangerous Goods Oid alove referred to) & ach hain to be good enough to adirse
kein
in