59
Whilst therefore I regret if my despatch No. 4 guve rise to expectation that some part payment might be made in respect of this category of claims, I feel sure that on further consideration you will agree with me that no payment can now be made. It follows from the above that I should not feel justified in saking the Comorwealth Relations Office to approach the Goverment of India for any payment to be made in respect of the Category "0" claims referred to in your despatch No. 227 of the 30th September, 1947, and No. 15 of 28th January, 1948, amounting to 8.546,538 (£34,159), nor in asking the Air Ministry to admit the Category "C" claim amounting to 8.17,800 (£1,113) against the Royal Air Force referred to in the same despatches.
5.
on
In paragraphs 7 to 10 of your despatch No. 15 of the 28th January, 1948, you took the opportunity of referring to a claim on the Hong Kong Government by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation for the sum of £30,557. It appears that this claim ie in respect of advances made by the Bank to cover the purchase of wool tops from Australia, first shipped to Shanghai for spining, and then to Hong Kong for manufacture into woollen goods, for the Government of India. 8734 is also claimed for interest on the advances. It appears; also that firms in Hong Kong deposited with the Bank various suma in respect of the yarn received by them for manufacture, and that the credit balance with the Bank on the 25th Decembx ». 1941, on this account amounted to 1.248,436 (£15,527). I ~ not clear whether this is a case where no ciuin can be a by Government against the bank in respect of the £15,527 s being Government monies held by the bank and taken over the
IP Japanese authorities on their occupation of the Colony. this is in fact the case, there do not appear to be very 30 grounds for the Bank on its part claiming the 580,557 plus the interest from Government. You may wish to consider to shë extent if any you would be justified in pursuing a claim for the net sum involved against the Government of India, but the information before me I do not fool able to take the catter up with the Commonwealth Relations Office with a view to their approaching the Government of India on the matter. 5. In your deepatah No. 235 of the 29th September, 190, you referred to a charge amounting to 8.15,119 (£945) in respect of the difference between the cost of certain stores delivered to the Government of India and the net :roceeds of the remittance received from the Government of Inata. It appears that the Government of India affected settle ent for the War Supplies account for September, 1941, by purcha bills from Thomas Cook and Sona, Delhi, drawn on 21ocas Cook and Sons, Hong kong, for the amount of Rs.9.09.134-13-9
It was not possible for these bills to be set during the Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong and they were accordingly transmitted to the Hong Kong Goverment Account #fice inlondon for retention until such time as they could be pfsented in lie Kong. It appears from your despatch that on esentation t bills realised 8.15,119 less than the amour actually di the Government of Hong Kong.
Any claim shif the Goveonet. of Hong Kong feels is still outstanding this sccount o to be one for consideration by the Goveg not clear on what grounds it can be helthat the ohuge shou
now be met by His lajesty's Goverment.
cope
ent of Incle and 7
I have the honour" be.
sir.
Your most obedir
huble here.
(sgd.) LISTŒEL.
Page 60Page 61