8959.
تر
། ། ། ། :|
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
:
No. 117A.
(BERMUDA.)
[OPINION of the SOLICITOR TO THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS on the APPLICATION of the CUSTOMS LAW of BERMUDA to the CASE of PRIVATE GOODS brought by H. M. SHIPS for TRANSFER to other of H. M. SHIPS at BERMUDA.]
LORD Knutsford's inquiry is rather a wide one, asking as it does, the opinion of the Board on the question raised as to the application of the Customs Laws of Bermuda to the case of private goods brought by Her Majesty's ships for transfer to other of Her Majesty's ships at Bermuda.
The inquiry may mean simply a question as to what in a similar case would be done in Home waters.
Or it may ask for an opinion of the Board on the correctness of the view taken by the Law Officer of Bermuda on the Local laws.
Of course, as regards the latter point, it is somewhat delicate ground for a legal adviser of the Home Government to criticise the recognised exponent of the Insular law.
But taking the question from a strictly legal point of view, I do not agree with the Attorney-General, either by analogy with the Imperial law or by reference to the Insular Acts.
His main and general argument that duty is payable on goods if in any way unladen in the waters of the island and whether landed or not.
The Imperial Customs Act while treating as "imported," and as liable to duty, all goods which come into the territorial waters (and necessarily so for the sake of supervision and for seizure if illegal) does not require payment of duty in respect of goods not actually landed for consumption or use in the United Kingdom. The laws of transhipment and warehousing, indeed, show this.
The provisions in the Bermuda Act as to entry, landing, and the like are very similar to those in the Imperial Act, and in default of very express enactment' in opposition to the Imperial practice, I should expect these Acts to lead to the same conclusion.
The Attorney-General of the Island argues that there is an express enactment in this opposite direction, and he deduces it in this way :—
Act 1861, section 4, says that no goods may be unladen without "
entry."
Same Act, section 12, and Act 1867, section 23, say that "entry" must be made.
within three days of the arrival of the ship, i.e., dropping anchor. Act 1861, section 5, requires all duties to be paid at the time of making" entry.” Therefore payment of duty is necessary to unlading.
That is the Attorney-General's argument as I understand it, and of course taken link by link in that way it has its footing of argument, but the reply to it is that the requirement that duty shall be paid on entry applies to such goods as by their destination come to be not simply liable to, but actually and justly payers of duty, where payable, duty is to be paid on entry and before landing; but this very proper requirement would not apply to goods not landed, or intended for consumption in the jurisdiction.
I think too, several portions of the Insular Revenue Acts point in this direction. Section 5 of the principal Act (1861) refers to "unlading and landing" as natural incidents of duty-paying goods.
As pointed out in the letter from the Colonial Office, sections 1 and 2 of the Act of 1870 distinctly refer to "landing"; and, while the entire exemptions from duty, whether as regards goods landed or not, do only in that Act relate to re-commissioned ships (free ** stores for Her Majesty's ships otherwise being provided for by the -Act of 1867, section 11), there is nothing in this Act of 1870 to impose duty on goods
not landed.
On the contrary, section 6, which states that goods brought by any commissioned ship liable to duty shall, if landed without due entry and payment of duty, be forfeited, distinctly implies the contrary.
▲ 52950.-25. 25.-7/88.
+