353
It will be noticed that subsection (2) of section 9
of the present Ordinance is wider than the corresponding subsection of the United Kingdom Act, and the question of following the Act more closely on this point is being con- aldered in connection with the question referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Section 10 reproduces section 2 of the Certificates of Origin Amendment ordinance, 1915, No.18 of 1915, which is repealed by section 2 of the present Ordinance. It seem- ed more convenient to have these provisions in the present Ordinance, especially in view of section 11. It is not intended to attempt to enforce this section against any goods which were not of enemy origin at the time of importa-j tion.
A
Section 11 is intended to apply to goods coming from or destined for persons of enemy nationality in China, Siam, Persia or Lorocco, the powers of seizure and forfeiture already possessed with respect to goods coming from enemy territory. It follows the wording of Article 5(vii) of the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation No.2. This makes
the the form of subsection rather awkward, in view of the vary- ing presumptions which it seems to authorise, but it is thought that any possible embarrassment to the claimant will be avoided by giving particulars of the ground or grounds of seizure. Section 2 of the Customs (War Powers) (No.2) Act, 1915, 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c.71, which has since reached the Colony, is in a much simpler form, but it does not appear to embody the principle of throwing the onus on the goods,
Section 12 authorises a method of proof which is taken from section 3 of the Certificates of Origin Amendment
Ordinance, 1915, No.18 of 1915.
I