Commenting on subparagraph 8(d) (new subparagraph 9(c)), some representatives considered it desirable to introduce a time element in that provision as it was vital that the authorities be notified as promptly as possible of suspicious transactions. One representative expressed the opinion that the required notification of authorities should be based on a more precise consideration than the mere suspicion that the substances were destined for illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and he suggested that "a well-founded presumption" should exist. It was further proposed to refer to competent national agencies and services rather than to appropriate authorities in keeping with what had been done in article 6. The Group agreed to revise the formulation of subparagraph 8(d) taking into account some of the above comments.
189.
During the consideration of subparagraph 8(e) (new subparagraph 9(d)), it was proposed by several representatives that the commercial documents referred to in that subparagraph should also include information regarding the form of payment. Such information, in their view, was a key element in tracing illicit transactions. Some other representatives held the view that the inclusion of such information would not serve any useful purpose and that the monitoring system established under subparagraph (a) should in itself ensure an adequate overview of the financial operations involved. As a compromise solution, it was suggested that such a requirement might be introduced under the clause relating to suspicious transactions in subparagraph 8(d). The Group agreed to a revised formulation of subparagraph 8(d) incorporating this suggestion.
190.
One representative, who had made a reservation as regards the propriety and tenor of article 11 bis (see paragraph 227 below), made a similar reservation with respect to subparagraph 8(e).
191. Several representatives expressed diverging views regarding the requirement in subparagraph 8(e) that commercial documents such as invoices, cargo manifests, etc. should include the name of the consignee. It was pointed out by one representative that this requirement was impractical as in many cases the ultimate consignee was not known to the importer or wholesaler. It was suggested that the name of the consignee could be included in commercial documents where the information was known. The Group agreed provisionally to qualify the requirement by inserting in square brackets that the name and address of the consignee should be indicated "when available". Two representatives placed on record that they would have a reservation to the mention of the consignee in this subparagraph in the absence of the qualifying insertion.
192. It was pointed out that compliance with the requirement in subparagraph 8(e), that the names of substances as stated in List A and List B be included on commercial documents, would be extremely difficult as many of the substances being imported or exported were known under different names. It was however recognized that a uniform nomenclature was highly desirable if the provisions of article 8 were to be implemented effectively. It was therefore suggested that the Division of Narcotic Drugs could convene an expert group to standardize the names of the substances which may be placed under the monitoring system of the convention. Pending the adoption of such a nomenclature, it was agreed to retain in square brackets the reference to List A and List B.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.