difficult to understand the enactment, which seems some
thing quite inconsistent with wording of the various enact-
ments concerned.
Thus the T.H.E. Proclamation Sep. 1944 prohibits inter alia the obtaining foods from an enemy (para. 5. (7)-) and "enemy" is defined in S. 3. Not by reference to the Common Law.
Then S. 1B) after T.H.E. Extension of Powers Act you directs that (inter alia) the above Proclamation shall apply to "enemy" in as if for reference in the Proclamation shall be substituted references to persons on the Statutory List.
Now in the face of this can it be argued that Statutory Enemies listed are not treated as for the purpose of the Proclamation?
But after all this is a question for the Courts and not for the Foreign Trade Department by ourselves and I think we might content ourselves ? replying that we note with interest the contentions advanced in these paragraphs but that the Court at Hong Kong does not appear to have taken the Foreign Trade Department view, and that in any case it would seem impossible now to appeal against the order for forfeiture which was originally made on the application of the Government, and that as the goods have no doubt long since been sold and Foreign Trade Department do not wish us to take any action regarding compensation, we presume that nothing need be done on the last paragraph of 50752.
Page 614
With regard to the general proposition put forward in the 4th paragraph of this letter. The argument now seems to be that the procedure established p 8.11 of 22/1915 H.K. should only be used where the goods are owned by some person within the jurisdiction of the Colony and I think this argument is, at least partially, sound.
Foreign Trade Department speak only of "enemy goods", no doubt because the consignor and consignee were both on the Statutory List, but I take it their meaning is as just stated. As to the form of the Hong Kong law (9.11 of 22/15) I don't think that that differs substantially from that of the United Kingdom so far as the present point is concerned. The effect of S.6 of the Customs (W.P.) Act 1918 as extended by 5.2 of the Customs (W.P.) No.2 Act, 1915, seems to be to make all goods imported in contravention of the law relating to Trading with Enemy (including presumably the T/E. (Extension of Powers) Act) liable to forfeiture
difficult to understand ter aynment, which seems kome
thin quinte inconsistent with wording of the various enact-
ments concomed.
Thus the THE Prats of the olis Sep. 1944 prohibits inter alin the obtaining foods from an enemy (para. 5. (7)-) and "enemy" is S. 3. Not by referense defined in
but in to the Commen fet kom.
اسها
Then 5. 1B) ather TIE- Extension
of Powers Act you directs that (inter alia) the above Proclaw?
shall apply
to" enemy" in
as if for reference
the Proclaw? shall
be substitutes references to persons & on the Statulory
List.
Stow in the face of this can it be argued that Statutory
Enemies listes are not treated as for the purpose of the Proclawd
But after all this is a quechen
614
for the Courts and not for the Foreign Trade Department
by
of ourselves and I think we might content ourselves
? replying that we note with interest the con-
tentione advanced in these paragraphe but that
the Court at Hong Kong does not appear to have taken the Foreign Trade Department view, and
that in any case it would seem impossible
now to appeal against the order for forfeiture
which was originally made on the application of
the Government, and that as the goods have no
doubt long since been sold and Foreign Trade
Department do not wish us to take any action
regarding compensation, we presume that nothing
need be done on the last paragraph of 50752.
With regard to the general proposition put forward in the
4th paragraph of this letter. The argument now seems to
be that the procedure established p 8.11 of 22/1915 H.K. should only be used where the goods are owned by some
person within the jurisdiction of the Colony and I think
this argument is, at least partially, sound,
Foreign Trade Department speak only of "enemy goods", no
doubt because the consignor and consignee were both on the Statutory List, but I take it their meaning is as just stated. As to the form of the Hong Kong law (9.11 of 22/15)
I don't think that that differs substantially from that
of the United Kingdom so far as the present point is con- cerned. The effect of S.6 of the Custome (W.P.) Act 1918
as extended by 5.2 of the Customs (W.P.) No.2 Act, 1915,
seems to be to make all goode imported in contravention of the law relating to Trading with Enemy (including presum- ably the T/E. (Extension of Powers) Act) liable to
forfeiture
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.