CO129-622-6 Claims of War Supplies to Eastern Group Supply Council 21-1-1949 - 23-12-1949 — Page 5

rex/4x) file

4) (para

+ 1/48

Art. 6

No

25

1448 ple

%

.....

8

ef Care

From No. 5 on this file it now appears that H.M.G. made a lump sum settlement with India covering such claims and it is therefore now for India to settle this particular claim. C.R.O. is willing to help and I think this particular claim can be pursued departmentally and in correspondence with the Government of Hong Kong with some hopes of eventual settlement.

B. Stores not delivered.

C.

$2,896,301 = £181,019.

8546,538

Advances by European merchants.

£34,108. £ 34,159

We can hardly press India to adopt a different line from that which we ourselves propose in the case of claims against H.M.G. We would receive no support from either Treasury or Ministry of Supply and any approach to India is likely to be fruitless.

4. Hong Kong has also submitted a claim to the Government of Burma for $105,206 (£6,575). The claim apparently comes under category A. The claim was forwarded to the Ministry of Supply but that Department do not suggest any procedure for settlement. Hong Kong has referred the claim to Burma and Burma's reply in the matter was referred to "the paying authority" but in fact no payment has been received nor I imagine is ever likely to be received. I do not know how far the matter can be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of our Treaty with Burma of 17th October 1947, a copy of which is at No. 6 on this file. It is stated there that the Treaty has not been ratified by the Government of U.K. As, however, it appears to be envisaged under the terms of that Treaty that a liability of this nature would lie against H.M.G. I think we should ask that the Ministry of Supply should undertake to accept the liability.

advanced

ว

5. Another claim is from Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank for £80,556.16.2d an despost/of wool supplies for manufacture into woollen goods for the Government of India. The firms concerned with the knitting deposited with the bank in payment for the wool more than the above sum. The bank claims on the Hong Kong Government for that sum but Hong Kong does not explain what is the Bank's position as regards the larger amount deposited by the firms with the bank. Have the contractors any claim for the return of those deposits? If not, what moral claim has the bank against the Hong Kong Government! I think we require further information from Hong Kong about this before pursuing the matter either with the Ministry of Supply or with the Government of India. That does not, however, rule out a possible approach to the Government of India eventually if we were satisfied that there is justification for India being asked to pay. It seems however at the moment as though this claim comes under category C above and without expressing any final opinion on the subject at this date I am rather doubtful whether in fact the claim can be pursued. admitted.

16.