CO129-439 - Others - 1916 — Page 620

615

forfeiture on application to the ordinary Courts. (See 69.42 and 218 of the Customs Act, 1876). It would seem

possible therefore to obtain forfeiture under these Acts

of goods consigned by one Statutory List firm to another, and landed for transhipment from a British ship.

I take it therefore that there is no objection to the form of the Hong Kong legislation and indeed the Foreign Trade Department don't seem to suggest any such objection_ a) would not therefore propose any amendment, all that is

necessary I think is to

?

-enemy Just

and ?

resume that it leads follow, from reply that we The principles Supported in this letter, which mentors that the power of forfeiture given by 5.11 of

22/15 should not be utilized in the case of

Joubal

goods belonging to a foreigner, but ask whether

this begument applies also to goods belonging to

British subjects or to firms carrying on business in the Empire

A

outside Hong Kong, e.g. the-eeee of goods con-

signed by a Statutory List firm to a British firm

in Ceylon and landed at Hong Kong for transhipment

after the property had passed to the British firm,

Also whether the forfeiture procedure might not

be invoked in the case of goods belonging to allied

alien subjects or firms carrying on business in

allied territory with the consent of the Consul

of the allied country concerned.

and say that it would be useful to know the prac-

tice followed in the United Kingdom under the

Customs War Powers Acts and that we are inquiring

of the Custome accordingly.

send customa copy correspondence asking whether

the power of forfeiture conferred by S.6 of the Customs War Powers Act, 1915, 5.2 of the Customs War Powera (No.2) Act, 1915 and SS.42 &

218 of the Customs Act, 1876.1ould be used in case of goods belonging

(a)