31
not help, because its object is only to enable the
or persons authority of the State to ensure that goods are not going to
24
be kept in the territory; and especially with refer-
ence to monopoly and to passengers being in a position
to complete their journey.
If there are both a through bill of lading
and a contract between the importers in China and the
country of export?
exporters in the it is, I think, clear that
the Convention applies. If there is neither, it is
as a
rule
almost equally clear that it does not, since the
normally
journey to China would/constitute a re-export.
There are unlikely, I suppose, to be two
If,
different contracts but a through bill of lading.
however, such a case occurred, I think that the passage
through Hong Kong would have to be regarded as a portior of the complete journey, so that the goods would be in
transit.
(direct
thu
-
The most difficult case is that where the
shipping documents show that the goods are consigned to Hong Kong, but a contract is produced showing that they have been bought by persons in China/from ≈ manu-
facturer
If a purchaser of
goods from a manufacturer asks him to send them to the premises of his (the purchaser's) agent, who will forward them to the purchaser, prima facie it seems
that two journeys are involved.
On the other hand,
the definition of "traffic in Transit" contains the
words "with or without
breaking bulk", and if
bulk is broken, I presume there must be a fresh
shipping contract for the part of the goods sent on,
so that the existence of two bills of lading cannot be
a fatal objection to the contention that the Convention
applies.
The real answer seems to me to be that it is impossible to lay down shortly hard and fast rules in
lay
the