611.42251/157
The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Secretary of
State
No. 787
London, April 6,
1933.
[Received April 15.]
Sir: Confirming the Embassy’s telegram No.
76, April 6, 12 noon,3
I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of the full text of a
note
[Page 5]
dated April 5 from the
Foreign Office, in reply to the Embassy’s Aide-Mémoire based on the Department’s telegraphic
instruction No. 16, January 19, 1 p.m.,4 concerning the difficulties at present
encountered in shipping Canadian wheat to the United Kingdom via
United States ports.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Simon) to the
American Chargé (Atherton)
No. A 2548/232/45
[London,] 5 April,
1933.
Sir: His Majesty’s Government in the
United Kingdom have had under consideration the memorandum,
which Mr. Mellon caused to be communicated to this department on
the 24th January last5 regarding the recent decision of His Majesty’s Customs
in respect of a shipment of Canadian wheat in the S. S. Laconia.
- 2.
- In reply I have the honour to state that it has, since the
introduction in 1919 of the system of Imperial Preference,
been a statutory condition of the grant of preference not
only that goods must be of British Empire origin but also
that they must be consigned to the United Kingdom from a
part of the British Empire. This requirement of consignment
from a part of the British Empire appears for the first time
in Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1919, and has been
reproduced in subsequent enactments as an essential
principle of Empire preference. Since that date the
principle has on a number of occasions been sustained in
respect of various commodities and various countries, as it
has been found indispensable for a proper administration of
the system by the Customs.
- 3.
- It is true that in the case of the recent shipment of
Canadian wheat from New York the documents accompanying the
wheat established its Canadian origin, but there was no
satisfactory evidence that at the time of leaving Canada the
wheat was definitely consigned to the United Kingdom, and
the claim of preference consequently failed. This question
of consignment is one of fact, and in cases in which the
wheat, at the time of leaving Canada, is definitely
consigned to the United Kingdom there should be no
insuperable difficulty in producing the necessary documents
to satisfy the Customs on this point. In the Laconia case the documents showed
that the wheat was first consigned to Buffalo and
subsequently re-consigned from the United States of
[Page 6]
America, the condition
of through consignment thus clearly not being
fulfilled.
- 4.
- While His Majesty’s Government have given the most careful
and sympathetic consideration to the memorandum under
reference, they are, unfortunately, unable to regard the
first proposal (A) put forward therein as entirely
satisfactory, since the Lake bill of lading mentioned
therein, even if endorsed to a named consignee in this
country, could not be accepted as satisfactory evidence that
the consignment condition had been fulfilled; they are
advised that this document merely covers transit to Buffalo
and that the endorsement has no legal effect.
- 5.
- His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom are,
however, most anxious to take account of the considerations
set forth in the memorandum on behalf of the various United
States interests concerned, so far as the statutory
requirements in force permit and so far as is consistent
with the essential objects which these requirements have in
view. His Majesty’s Customs will accordingly be prepared to
accept a satisfactory evidence of through consignment to the
United Kingdom, in cases where wheat is definitely consigned
to the United Kingdom at the time of shipment from Canada,
an invoice to the consignee in the United Kingdom issued at
the time of shipment and supported by supplementary evidence
that there was a bona fide transaction (e.g. the order from
the British consignee for the supply of the wheat), even
though the wheat did not move to the original consignee
named on the invoice but to some other ultimate purchaser in
the United Kingdom. It is to be understood that in such a
case the invoice must also be accompanied by the usual
documents tracing the transit of the goods from Canada to
the United Kingdom. I trust that the above procedure may be
found acceptable to the interests concerned, and will
provide a solution of the difficulties which have
arisen.
- 6.
- The memorandum further proposes (under sub-head B), a
transitory procedure for the treatment of Canadian grain now
in the United States which had left Canada before the close
of navigation on the Great Lakes in 1932. I regret that it
is not possible to adopt this procedure, since the Ottawa
Agreements Act makes no provision for any special treatment
of commodities which were already under way at the time of
its entry into force; in this respect it followed the
procedure generally adopted in this country and also, so far
as I am aware, in the United States of America.
I have [etc.]
(For the Secretary of State)
R. L. Craigie
