Page 322 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

178

675. Availing itself of the prohibition which existed against the export of
Administration Report for 1901-02 p»gci t-3. provisions from Persia, the customs admi­
nistration imposed in 1901 a 10 per cent,
External A., Dccembe* 1903 Nos- io-ia.
duty on barley, wheat or rice and other
articles of provisions, not withstanding the fact that these may have paid the 5 per
Secret K., April 190a. Nos. 99-104. cent, import duty. This duty was enforced
in the case of provisions sent off to British
Secret E., May 1903, No». S«*5a-
ships within Persian waters. At Lingah,
which is an important port of transhipment for the opposite coast of the Gulf, this
recent regulation was very unpopular and it was feared that the prosperity of the
place would suffer in consequence.
676. The port of Dilam was also taken over by the customs administration,
but Hyder Khan, Shaik of Bandar Rig,
External A., July >902, N-s. 83-83.
refused at first to hand over the control of
the customs at that port. A large number of Tangistani and Dashti tofanghis
was enlisted for the purpose, it was believed, of sending an expedition against
Bandar Rig. The Shaik of the place appears to have yielded in time.
677. A disturbance was expected at Bushire, about the middle of the year
1903, but nothing serious occurred. H. M.
Secret E., May 1903. Nos. 88 96,
S. Perseus was warned to be ready to
Secret 8., June 1903, Nos. 94*95-
proceed to the place in case of disturbance.
(xeix Levy of transhipment fees at Bushire, 1901,
678. The Resident at Bushire reported to Sir A. Hardinge in June 1901
that the customs authorities at that port
Secret E., October ijol, No. 166.
were charging fees, which he estimated in
one case at 2J per cent, ad valorem on the transhipment of goods from one
British vessel to another and contended that this was an infringement of the
provision by which no import duty in excess of 5 per cent, ad valorem could be
levied on our merchandise. He admitted, however, that in accordance with the
practice prevailing in Indian ports a small fee might reasonably be charged for
the time and labour of the customs officials in supervising the transhipment of
cargo.
679. Sir A. Hardinge discussed the question with M. Naus, who at first
strove to argue that as under the treaty of Turkomanchai there was no freedom of
transit in Persia, the Persian authorities might, if they pleased, levy the full 5
percent, on goods brought in transhipment or transit into any Persian port. Sir
A. Hardinge pointed out that the usage of the past 60 years, not to speak of instruc­
tions to the contrary issued on several occasions by the Persian Government, was
fatal to this contention, and M. Naus did not attempt seriously to defend.
Sir A. Hardinge ultimately agreed as a provisional arrangement to a fee of 2| shahis
(half the amount hitherto claimed) per package for the services of the customs
officials on the understanding that it would be levied in the case of the vessels of
all nations. M. Naus proposed eventually to introduce a regular scale based on
weight (Sir A. Hardinge to the Marquess of Lansdowne, dated the 19th July
1901).
680. The Government of India, on being consulted by the Secretary of State,
forwarded a statement of transhipment
Secret E., February 1903, Nos. 195-98.
fees levied in Indian ports,, and expressed
the opinion that the rate provisionally agreed to was moderate though they
considered that it might be of advantage to fix a maximum fee of the equivalent
of 40 rupees, as in the Burma ports [Government of India (Revenue Department)
to Lord G. Hamilton, dated 24th October 1901].
681. The Board of Trade, in connection with (pertain suggestions made by
Colonel Kemball, thought that, though they could not make it a condition
that the proposed transhipment charges should be devoted to harbour improve­
ments, it would be desirable that the question of harbour improvements should
be borne in mind and urged on the Persian Government at the first favour.