Mr. Day to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
Washington, September 15, 1898.
Excellency: In your note of July 20 last, relative to the execution of countervailing duty under the provisions of section 5 of the act of July 24, 1897, on imports of British refined sugars in cases where the raw sugar used is not proved to have originated from a country which does not give bounties on sugar, you state that it seems to Her Majesty’s Government that, while the wording of said section 5 may be held to cover refined sugars coming from a country which does not produce raw sugar, there is some hardship in applying the full countervailing duty imposed on the produce of a particular bounty-giving country to the refined article in which free cane sugar as well as bounty-paid sugar may have been used; that so far as Her Majesty’s Government is aware it has usually been held in regard to the tariff treatment of refined sugar that this article is the produce of the country where it has been refined, and that if it is not deemed possible under the present tariff law to extend this treatment to British refined sugars, Her Majesty’s Government desires to inquire whether that of the United States would be willing to alleviate the hardship complained of by fixing the countervailing duty on such sugars in all cases of doubt as to the origin of the raw material used at as low a point as possible.
You add, in conclusion, that it would be a great relief if the United States Government would consent to accept in the case of sugars the produce of British West India colonies or other nonbounty-giving countries a declaration of origin by the importer without the consular certificate at present required.
The Secretary of the Treasury, to whose attention your note was brought, has given careful consideration to the questions presented, and desires me to reply thereto as follows:
While under the tariff of 1894 refined sugar was held to be wholly the product of the country where it was refined, regardless of the origin of the raw sugar used, the provisions of section 5 in the tariff of 1897 imposing countervailing duties on merchandise originating in bounty-paying countries, whether it is imported “in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by remanufacture or otherwise,” clearly point to the [Page 375] necessity of ascertaining the origin of the raw materials in each case, and do not admit of the treatment formerly accorded to refined sugars. Nor does the present law confer upon the Secretary of the Treasury the authority implied in your suggestion—to subject the raw sugar of unknown origin to the lowest possible countervailing duty.
The necessity of ascertaining in each case of refined sugar the origin of the raw sugar used being imperative, the Treasury Department is constrained to use the most efficient means to that end, and is therefore unable to allow that the statement of the importer, who is far from the sources of information as to the origin of the raw sugar, be substituted in certain cases for the certificate of the consul to whom such sources are readily accessible.
I have, etc.,