893.512/755: Telegram
The Minister in China ( MacMurray ) to the Secretary of State
51. 1. Following from consul general at Shanghai:
- “(1) [9.?] January 26 [17?], 2 p.m. There was instituted in the Bank of China a stamp tax on petty duty memos varying from 2 cents to a maximum of $1.50, according to the amount of duty quoted from Taels 3.50 to Taels 1,700.
- (2) This is an unauthorized use of stamps because it increases the import duties. It is one which creates a dangerous precedent since it is capable of unlimited increase and applicable to cover a great variety of documents. If maintained, bills of lading and other documents concerning imports will be included next. I am advising importers not to pay until I have consulted the Legation. I venture the suggestion that Inspector General might instruct the Commissioner to disregard the stamp tax on duty memos. Request authorization to protest to the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and endeavor to nave this remitted.
- (3) It is suggested that until the powers of the Bank of China are confined strictly to collection of treaty duties its [apparent omission] of duty memos and other documents will be used to collect not only the Washington surtaxes,38 but innumerable other taxes. This was imposed without opposition effective from the 16th.
- (4) Stamp tax is placed on the agenda for the consular body’s consideration tomorrow.”
“June [January?] 17, 6 p.m. Referring to my telegram No. 9, January 17, 2 p.m. Following, being declaration number 1, is posted by Superintendent of Customs in the Bank of China to be immediately effective:
‘Under instructions from the Nationalist Government Revenue Department the public is hereby notified that all bills of lading must bear tax stamp. [If] tax stamp is already affixed the bill of lading is negotiable. If this is not done or if postmark is not sufficient no document is allowed to pass the customs.’
- (2)
- Stamps to be offered chanceries in accordance with the value of the cargo, ranging from 1 cent on cargo valued at $10.00 to $1.50 on cargo valued at $50,000.
- (3)
- The recommendations in my telegram above referred to are repeated.”
2. Following to Shanghai:
“January 19, 1 p.m. Your 3 [9?], January 17, 1 [2?] p.m., and 10, January 17, 3 [6?] p.m.
- (1)
- You are authorized to protest to Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and request cancellation of both requirements.
- (2)
- Second paragraph of your 9. Ministers principally concerned feel that it would be useless and of doubtful wisdom, in view of known policy of the Customs, to ask Inspector General to instruct Commissioner to disregard requirements of local authorities thus risking disruption of Customs organization.”
3. Following from Shanghai:
“January 23, 10 a.m. Referring to my telegram January 17, 1 [2?] p.m. A letter has been received from American Chamber of Commerce [referring to] previous protest against the imposition of the stamp taxes and in connection therewith stating:
‘Please be advised that we have no objection to this method of raising revenue, provided such taxes are legal and are imposed and enforced uniformly and without discrimination.
It is presumed however that the rates at present imposed are merely preliminary to an attempt on the part of the Nationalist Government to impose exorbitant taxes on American business in which [case] we shall again petition our Government to authorize its consular officials in China to accept on behalf of the Chinese Government payment of lawful tax only on American goods and to issue in due form permits for the landing and delivery of such goods.’
The chamber takes a very reasonable attitude in regard to the stamp tax on duty memos and bills of lading and, in accordance with my opinion, should the tax become unreasonable, points out only method of successfully combating these nontreaty taxes.”
4. The question is shortly to be considered by the diplomatic body
- Telegram in two sections.↩
- See art. in, Nine-Power Treaty concerning the revision of the Chinese customs tariff, signed at Washington, Feb. 6, 1922, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, pp. 282, 285.↩