CO882-6 — Page 482

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

f

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

31

The imports of refined sugars into the island have increased considerably in the last year or two. They are shown in the following statement:-

Imports from-

Hong Kong

China ...

Other Countries

Total

1900.

1901.

1902.

1908.

Metric tons.

441

. Metric tons.

Metric tone.

153

961

Metric tons.

830

23

557

808

1,831

GG

124

206

300

580

834

1,975

2,961

Telegraphic communications have also been sent to His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Iloilo and His Majesty's Consul-General at Manila asking whether there is any internal consumption of raw sugar and, if so, for what purposes and to what extent. The former replies in the negative, the latter in the affirmative, adding that it is impossible to estimate, but that 6,000 tons are consumed by the natives only in confectionery and coffee. The consumption of sugar in the Philippines by the European population must be quite insignificant compared with export. In 1900 the European population numbered 70,000 (including over 62,000 for the Army of occupation). Allowing even the high American rate for consumption 68 lbs. per head, this could only account for about 2,000 tons.

The consumption by the 70,000 Chinese and Japanese would probably not exceed one-tenth of the above figure.

Such a quantity as here suggested amounts to an altogether too small proportion of the output as indicated by the figures already given for exports to enable a bounty to be derived from the high surtax even if any combination of producers were in existence who could get the most out of such an advantage. There is no evidence that the price of sugar for native consumption any higher than the price for expor- tation, and in order to prove the existence of a bounty it would be necessary to adduce such evidence. On the other hand the following extract from the "Monthly Summary of the Commerce of the Philippines" for October, 1903, suggests that the price is small and in many instances unremunerative.

"The selling price of sugar in the Iloilo market, based on the price in foreign markets, is about $64 Mexican per ton, which allows little or no profit on the sugar from the most favourably located estates and is considerably less than the cost of production on the interior estates

The planters are more deeply in debt

at the close of 1903 season than at any previous time in their history, and if it had not been for the low ruling rate of exchange enabling powers to pay more in Mexican currency on practically the same gold prices as last year, a large percentage of the planters would have been entirely ruined and compelled to abandon their estates. The planters have been steadily losing ground since 1899, and have only been encouraged to continue the operation of their estates by the hope each year that their products would be admitted to the markets of the United States at a much more favourable rate of duty than is now imposed."

Telegrams have also been despatched to His Majesty's Consul-General at Manila, and His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Iloilo enquiring whether there is any combination among sugar producers to keep up home prices, and to export at lower prices. The former replies that there is none, and that there is no likelihood of such a combina- tion; the latter that a combination is impossible. Board of Trade,

2661

SIR.

December

1904.

No. 37.

THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS to COLONIAL OFFICE, (Received January 27, 1905.) [Answered by No. 53.]

Custom House, London, January 26, 1905. WITH reference to Mr. Lucas's letter of the 28th ultimo, 41782/1904, † on the

Equivalent to about £5 12s. por ton.

↑ No. 35.

35

subject of the Hong Kong Sugar Ordinance and proposed Regulations thereunder, I am directed by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs to offer the following observations for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies:-

As regards the Ordinance, it appears to the Board that provision should be made in Section 2 to meet cases, such as that of Japan, where certain classes of sugar are bounty-fed while other classes are not. The section, as worded, may cover the point, but it depends largely upon the interpretation to be placed upon the words no sugar" in line 4. Any doubt in the matter would be removed by the insertion of the word "such" between "no" and "

sugar." In that case no amendment of Regulation 5, such as is suggested in paragraph 3 of the letter under reply, would appear to be required. It is, however, suggested that the legal advisers of the Colonial Office might be consulted on the point.

It is pointed out in Sir M. Nathan's despatch, that the importation of sugar in transit has not been provided for in the Ordinance, and the Board agree with the Secretary of State that this omission should be remedied. This could be done con- veniently by adding to Section 2 the words "This section shall not apply to sugar in transit."

It may be observed that provision was made for sugar in transit in the draft Bill enclosed with Colonial Office letter of the 24th May last, No. 17736/1904,† by the words "an Order made under this section shall not apply to sugar in transit" in Section 2,

46

With respect to paragraph 4 of Mr. Lucas's letter of the 28th ultimo, ‡ the word 'glucose" should be inserted between "include" and "molasses" in Regulation 8, as suggested.

The Board would observe, with regard to the Certificates of Origin proposed to be required on entry and to be issued on export, that the forms do not quite follow the lines suggested by the Brussels Permanent Commission. So far as sugar to be kept in Hong Kong is concerned this may not be of much importance, but for exports it is thought that the usual conditions should be adhered to, although, even in this case, unless there are exports to contracting States, it is probably not a matter of much moment at present. This would entail, for export certificates, the following addition to Regulation 5, viz.:-

" (c)

or of despatch, and the country for which the goods

are destined; and (d) the method of transport (railway, ship, boat, &c.)."

The following addition should also be made to Regulation 2:—

"With regard to sugar prepared in non-contracting States,

the certificate must state, in addition, that it is derived from a factory which does not work sugar coming from a State to which a special duty or prohibition is applied."

In the absence of a proper fiscal authority in the country of origin or despatch, the Board see no objection to Hong Kong accepting certificates signed and issued by British Consular Officers, as provided for in Section 3 of the proposed Regulations. The proposed "Regulations for sugar in transit" appear to be satisfactory so far as landed sugars are concerned, and the Board do not think that any objection need be raised to the proposal of the Governor (paragraph 5 of despatch") to simplify them by approving the warehouse of a particular company for the ware- housing of sugar in transit if that course is found more convenient.

It would be well to make clear in these Regulations that sugar in transit need not necessarily be landed, but may be transhipped from vessel to vessel, or may remain on board the importing vessel for subsequent exportation, under official supervision.

This latter point is referred to in paragraph 5 of Sir M. Nathan's despatch, but

is not dealt with in the proposed Regulations for sugar in transit.

I am to add that it is not the practice in this country to require Certificates of Origin for sugar in transit, the goods remaining in Customs charge the whole of the time they are in the United Kingdom and the original certificates going forward with them. If this course can be followed in Hong Kong, then the words "except in transit" should be added between "Colony" and "shall" in Regulation 2, lines 1 and 2, of the proposed regulations.

• No. 31.

↑ No. 16

18621

I am, &c.,

R. HENDERSON.

‡ No. 35.

Kt