611.1631/162
The Chargé in El Salvador (Fisher) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 14.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to this Legation’s despatch No. 877 of December 4, 1936,18 and to previous correspondence on the subject of the trade agreement negotiations.
There has been received from the Ministry of Foreign Relations this morning a note No. 1896 dated today relative to the general provisions and the other items still pending. A copy is enclosed.18
El Salvador accepts Schedule II as approved by the Department and forwarded with its instruction No. 258 of November 16, 1936.
El Salvador approves the general provisions in the form attached in Spanish, which is the same as the informal text forwarded with the Legation’s despatch No. 877 of December 4, 1936, except in the following instances:
- 1.
- Article XII is redrafted, but the essential meaning is unchanged. The reasons for this are pointed out in the memorandum relative to the general provisions prepared by Dr. Rochac, one copy of which is [Page 569] attached.19 The phraseology suggested by the Department appeared, from his reading and interpretation, to conflict with the Law of Contraband. The article has been reworded to cover only errors of documentation; since good faith is always claimed when the charge of intent to defraud the customs is made. Dr. Rochac stated further that the question of good faith was beyond the power of the customs authorities to determine; that in past practice, the courts had waived penalties when it was satisfactorily proven; and that the present law, which he considered inequitable, was to be revised in the fairly near future in a manner which would, in effect, satisfy the Department’s desires on this point.
- 2.
- There is included as an additional article the assurance offered by the Department, that Salvadoran sugar imported into the United States, and on which a drawback of duty is later granted, will not be included in the Salvadoran sugar quota.
El Salvador is indisposed to grant any reduction of the consular invoice charge of 6%, for reasons of revenue; and is disinclined to provide for its collection in El Salvador. The reasons for this attitude were explained in the Legation’s despatch No. 877 of December 4, 1936.
El Salvador also objects to the reference to coconut oil in Article IV, since no similar exemption has appeared in the Central American trade agreements already signed.
Comments on this point will be found in Dr. Rochac’s memorandum.
The Foreign Office has failed to supply officially a copy of the draft of the general provisions mentioned in Dr. Rochac’s memorandum, although the Undersecretary of Foreign Relations states that this study refers to the clauses as already forwarded to the Department informally. A formal copy of the general provisions, with note, will be sent to the Department by the next air mail.
No attempt has been made to translate the note or memorandum, as the time involved would delay their transmission for two days.
Respectfully yours,