Downing Street
24th May, 1904.
476
I think this is clearly a viola-
tion of the conven-
tion.
1. French Indo-
China may not have
a higher surtax
than that allowed by Article III,
a fortiori it may
not apply prohibi-
tions except against
bounty-fed sugar.
My dear Pittar,
Forgive my worrying you with sugar puzzles
when on leave, but the matter is rather pressing.
French Indo China prohibits not only Bounty-
fed sugar but all sugar from countries not parties to the Convention (certain Chinese sugars excepted).
Hongkong refines sugar from Japan, a non-
conventional country, but where no bounty is given on raw sugar; also from Manila, which is as yet uncondemned; also from Argentine, which has been condemned.
1. Do you agree with Bergne and me that Indo-
China cannot refuse refined sugar from Hongkong
because the raw sugar came from Manila or Japan?
2. Do you agree with Bergne and me that Indo-
China could rightly exclude Hongkong refined sugar made from raw Argentine Sugar.
3. Do you agree with Bergne (I feel a doubt on the subject) that, if Hongkong imposed the Conventional countervailing duties on Argentine raw sugar, Indo-
China would then be obliged to admit Hongkong refined sugar made from it; in other words, that the raw sugar having once paid the regular countervailing duties in Hongkong, it would be whitewashed and no longer bounty-fed.
4. If Argentine Sugar were imported into France, charged the proper countervailing duty, refined and re-exported to England, would you admit it?
I should be most grateful if you could let me...
A.A.P.
16/6