This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.: 455
you that I have received a report from our authorities at Tairen, in which they ascertained that Yu Asa Shokai, of Tairen, sold 115 bags of the bona fide British sugar to Pi Tien Yang-hong, and that the Hong Kong sugar imported to Japan is, contrary to the argument of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, mostly of 100 kin or 120 catties, instead of 148 catties. I am further reported from the same authorities that Yu Asa Shokai, being a respectable firm in Japan, have been entered in a close business transaction for many years with Messrs. Holme, Ringer, and Co., agents of the Hong Kong Sugar Refinery at Shimonoseki.
Under the circumstances, I came to the conclusion that the fraudulent imitation of trade-mark would have been done by Pi Tien Yang-hong at Tiehling, and not by Yu Asa Shokai at Tairen.
Hoping that you will consider the measures taken in regard to this matter satisfactory, I have, &c.
(Signed)
S. YOSHIDA, Elève-Consul-in-charge,
His Japanese Majesty's Consulate-General,
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Acting Consul-General Willis to Mr. Yoshida.
Sir and dear Colleague,
Mukden, June 24, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches of the 5th and 19th instant with reference to the complaint of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire of the fraudulent imitation of their trade-marks at Tiehling.
I am quite satisfied that the bags sold by the Yu Asa Shokai to the Pi Tien firm contained originally bona fide British sugar, and that any fraud must have been committed at Tiehling by the Pi Tien firm. As I understand that this firm has now been declared bankrupt and has disappeared, it is clear that no further steps can be taken in the case.
I would take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to you for the valuable assistance you have given us in inquiring into the true facts of this case, more especially as I quite realize the difficulties of your position, pending the conclusion of a Trade-mark Convention between our respective Governments for the mutual protection of trade-marks in China.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ROBERT WILLIS.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[27994]
(No. 335.) Sir,
No. 1.
[August 12.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received August 12.)
Peking, July 21, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 211 of the 12th May regarding the question of li-kin in the Treaty ports, I have the honour to inclose a copy of the joint note of the Netherland and American Ministers and myself, writing on behalf of the Diplomatic Body, which was addressed to Prince Ching on the 8th instant.
In this communication we have pointed out that the effect of the Chinese Government's contention is to transform the 5 per cent. ad valorem basis of the tariff into one of 7 per cent., and we have urged that, as this question has caused years of friction with the Treaty Powers, the Chinese Government should devise means of taxation less irksome to trade and in conformity with the Treaties.
We have also maintained that, no matter how a place has been open to foreign trade, uniformity of practice must be observed.
Your Highness,
Inclosure in No. 1.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Joint Note to Prince Ching.
July 8, 1908. THE Undersigned, having been authorized by the Diplomatic Body to discuss and settle with your Highness the question concerning the levy of li-kin within Treaty port limits, have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Highness' note of the 10th April last, which has been carefully considered by them.
In this note your Highness observes that the limits of Treaty ports in distinction to the interior have never been defined by Treaty, and that the Chinese Government have never accepted the definition formulated by the foreign Representatives. Your Highness contends, therefore, that li-kin is leviable on all foreign imports unless they have paid transit dues, and similarly on all native produce for export unless it is covered by a transit pass.
According to this contention China would be entitled to collect transit dues on all merchandise. But the Treaty stipulates clearly that the payment of transit dues is only leviable, in the case of imports, on notice being given at the port of entry from which such imports are to be forwarded inland, of the nature and quality of the goods, the ship from which they have been landed, and the place inland to which they are bound; and in the case of exports, on produce purchased in the interior, which has to be inspected at the first barrier it passes on its way to the port of shipment, and on arriving at the barrier nearest the port notice must be given to the Customs, and the goods are passed on payment of the transit dues.
Such is the procedure laid down in Rule 7 appended to the British Treaty of Tien-tsin;
the essential points being, in the case of imports that they are to be conveyed away from the Treaty port into the interior, and in the case of exports that they are purchased in the interior for conveyance to a Treaty port.
From this it is abundantly clear that foreign imports, in respect to which no notice has yet been given to the Customs that they are to be forwarded inland, are exempt from transit dues while remaining in the Treaty port; and that exports, not purchased in the interior but in the Treaty port itself, are similarly exempt from transit dues.
It then becomes a question, as indicated in your Highness' note, where the Treaty port ends and where the interior begins. Your Highness states that no definition of limits has ever been made to which both China and the Treaty Powers have agreed. In the absence, therefore, of an explicit definition acceptable to both sides, the intention of the Treaties must be examined, and it will doubtless be conceded that
[1904 m-2
-2]
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.: 455
you that I have received a report from our authorities at Tairen, in which they ascertained that Yu Asa Shokai, of Tairen, sold 115 bags of the bond fide British sugar to Pi Tien Yang-hong, and that the Hong Kong sugar imported to Japan is, contrary to the argument of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, mostly of 100 kin or 120 catties, instead of 148 catties. I am further reported from the same authorities that Yu Asa Shokai, being a respectable firm in Japan, have been entered in a close business transaction for many years with Messrs. Holme, Ringer, and Co., agents of the Hong Kong Sugar Refinery at Shimonoseki.
Under the circumstances, I came to the conclusion that the fraudulent imitation of trade-mark would have been done by Pi Tien Yang-hong at Tiehling, and not by Yu Asa Shokai at Taireu.
Hoping that you will consider the measures taken in regard to this matter satisfactory, I have, &c.
(Signed)
S. YOSHIDA, Elève-Consul-in-charge,
His Japanese Majesty's Consulate-General,
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Acting Consul-General Willis to Mr. Yoshida.
Sir and dear Colleague,
Mukden, June 24, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches of the 5th and 19th instant with reference to the complaint of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire of the fraudulent imitation of their trade-marks at Tiehling.
I am quite satisfied that the bags sold by the Yu Asa Shokai to the Pi Tien firm contained originally bond fide British sugar, and that any fraud must have been committed at Tiehling by the Pi Tien firm. As I understand that this firm has now been declared bankrupt and has disappeared, it is clear that no further steps can be taken in the case.
I would take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to you for the valuable assistance you have given us in inquiring into the true facts of this case, more especially as I quite realize the difficulties of your position, pending the conclusion of a Trade-mark Convention between our respective Governments for the mutual protection of trade-marks in China.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ROBERT WILLIS.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[27994]
(No. 335.) Sir,
No. 1.
[August 12.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received August 12.)
Peking, July 21, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 211 of the 12th May regarding the question of li-kin in the Treaty ports, I have the honour to inclose a copy of the joint note of the Netherland and American Ministers and myself, writing on behalf of the Diplomatic Body, which was addressed to Prince Ching on the 8th instant.
In this communication we have pointed out that the effect of the Chinese Government's contention is to transform the 5 per cent. ad valorem basis of the tariff into one of 7 per cent., and we have urged that, as this question has caused years of friction with the Treaty Powers, the Chinese Government should devise means of taxation less irksome to trade and in conformity with the Treaties.
We have also maintained that, no matter how a place has been open to foreign trade, uniformity of practice must be observed.
Your Highness,
Inclosure in No. 1.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Joint Note to Prince Ching.
July 8, 1908. THE Undersigned, having been authorized by the Diplomatic Body to discuss and settle with your Highness the question concerning the levy of li-kin within Treaty port limits, have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Highness' note of the 10th April last, which has been carefully considered by them.
In this note your Highness observes that the limits of Treaty ports in distinction to the interior have never been defined by Treaty, and that the Chinese Government have never accepted the definition formulated by the foreign Representatives. Your Highness contends, therefore, that li-kin is leviable on all foreign imports unless they have paid transit dues, and similarly on all native produce for export unless it is covered by a transit pass.
According to this contention China would be entitled to collect transit dues on all merchandize. But the Treaty stipulates clearly that the payment of transit dues is only leviable, in the case of imports, on notice being given at the port of entry from which such imports are to be forwarded inland, of the nature and quality of the goods, the ship from which they have been landed, and the place inland to which they are bound; and in the case of exports, on produce purchased in the interior, which has to be inspected at the first barrier it passes on its way to the port of shipment, and on arriving at the barrier nearest the port notice must be given to the Customs, and the goods are passed on payment of the transit dues.
Such is the procedure laid down in Rule 7 appended to the British Treaty of Tien-tsin;
the essential points being, in the case of imports that they are to be conveyed away from the Treaty port into the interior, and in the case of exports that they are purchased in the interior for conveyance to a Treaty port.
From this it is abundantly clear that foreign imports, in respect to which no notice has yet been given to the Customs that they are to be forwarded inland, are exempt from transit dues while remaining in the Treaty port; and that exports, not purchased in the interior but in the Treaty port itself, are similarly exempt from transit dues.
It then becomes a question, as indicated in your Highness' note, where the Treaty port ends and where the interior begins. Your Highness states that no definition of limits has ever been made to which both China and the Treaty Powers have agreed. In the absence, therefore, of an explicit definition acceptable to both sides, the intention of the Treaties must be examined, and it will doubtless be conceded that
[1904 m-2
-2]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.