Page 171 - 5 Persian Trade rep BUSHIRE I_Neat

BU31IIRK. 9

Freight for dates to India during Aagust-September rose to 13 is.,
and special rates were quoted for the following :—■
Rn.
Skin* ... Fer 20 cwta. 25
Wool ... „ bale ... 5
Cotton „ Kale ... 2 to 8

Transport.—Owing to insecurity and to the dearth of mules
on the Shiraz route resulting from insecurity, rates of transport rose
to such an extent as to seriously affect trade. Starting in March,
1908, at about 150 krans (27. 14s. 6d.) per 100 Shiraz mans (738 lbs.),
the}7 fell in June to 120 and 90 krans in July, but had risen to 130 krans
(27. 7s. 3(7.) in October, 170 krans (37. Is. lOrf.) in November, 190 krans
(37. 9s. Ic7.) in December, 200 lcrans (37. 12s. 9d.) in January and 220
to 210 krans (47. to 47. 7s. 3d.) in March.
With prices stagnant in the Shiraz arid Isfahan markets and the
exchange value of sterling constantly rising, the burden of these
heavy transport charges on the importers will readily be apprehended.
In March, 1909, muleteers began to forsake the Kazerun route,
and were induced by the Chief of the Kashgai tribe and some Shiraz
merchants to follow the circuitous route via Fimzabad, which has
many objections, passes through wild country and is difficult in the
rainy season.
The relative scale of transport charges of late years forms an inter­
esting comment on the insecurity of the last three years in Southern
Persia:—
Per 733 Lbs.
Krana.
1902 SO
1904 SO, 90
1905 So, 95, 75, 110
1906-07 ... 150, 220, 110, 150
190« -08 ... 100,120,110, 90,140
190S-09 ... 14a 160, 170, 220

Troubles with customs over responsibility inside customs premises.—
Strong representations were made at the end of 1908 on the question
of the responsibility of the customs administration for the safety of
merchandise lying in the customs premises—from robbery, pilferage
and damage. Many Persian and European importers hold the view
that the customs administration should accept this responsibility,
but so far the Central Administration have declined to entertain the
idea. The position resulting from the regulations of 1903 is very
indefinite and affords considerable scope for individual construction
of the wording. The local customs administration takes the view
that merchants are responsible through their agent, the H&mmal-
Bashi, for the safety of all goods not placed in locked storehouses
(in which case high customs warehouse fees have to be paid and it is
difficult to see how merchants who only have access to the customs
at stated times in the day can possibly do this). The dual control
of the landing contractor by the merchants, whose nominee he is,
and by the customs has often afforded a pretext for shelving the