CO129-325 - Public Offices & Others - 1904 — Page 471

th

*

468

+

Origin (see page 12 of Command Paper 1632 of 1903),'

that is to say, the Certificate of Origin relating to

such Sugar would be required to show that the Sugar

was derived from a factory which did not work bounty-

fed Sugar. In effect, therefore, the admission into

a contracting State of Sugar refined in Hong Kong from

bounty-fed raw Sugar imported into that Colony would

be prohibited, notwithstanding the act of countervailing which had taken place on the importation of the raw Sugar into Hong Kong.

Whilst, in strictness, this might be held to be

the correct application of the Rules in question to the

case of Sugar refined in Hong Kong, the Board are of opinion that Article 6 as above referred to was designed by the Permanent Commission to meet the case of a non- contracting State, such as Switzerland (that Country being in fact, especially in view), which had not. countervailed bounty-fed raw Sugar introduced for refining. The case of a non-contracting country, such as Hong Kong, which might actually countervail such bounty-fed Sugar is substantially different, and constituted a new point when it was dealt with by Sir Henry Bergne at the 26th sitting of the Commission on

the 14th March las and the Board are inclined to think that though under its findings at the 12th sitting the Commission decided to go back to the origin of Sugar refined in a non-contracting country, no Convention country would be likely to maintain

lastyle

X

prohibition against Sugars emanating from the Refineries

â

of

Potem of the Agilitates relating

isfrutek ng appaiden

I

A

T

appa 4x II

To this paper