Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

TREATY OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN, 1815-TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND CONSULAR Rights BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, 1923 6

DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT?

Domestic Fuel Corp. v. United States

The decision rendered by the United States Customs Court on June 3, 1933, in the case of Domestic Fuel Corp. and George E. Warren Corp. v. United States (Revenue Act of 1932-Coal-Treaty provisions) was reprinted in Bulletin No. 45, June 1933, pages 10-32, from Treasury Decisions, vol. 63, no. 24, June 15, 1933 (Decision No. 46455). An appeal from this decision was made, and on April 2, 1934, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed the judgment of the United States Customs Court and a résumé of the decision (Treasury Decision No. 47010) was printed in Bulletin No. 56, May 1934, pages 19-23. The Court held that anthracite coal imported from Germany and Great Britain during the year 1932 after the Revenue Act approved June 6, 1932, had become effective, was not subject to the duty imposed by title IV, section 601, subsections (a), (b) and (c)(5) of the act, despite the fact that the total exports of the commodity from the United States to Germany and to Great Britain exceeded the total imports from those countries during the preceding calendar year. A duty imposed on the importation of coal would, it was stated, cause discrimination against such product in violation of the most-favorednation clauses of the treaties existing between the United States and Great Britain and Germany.

The above-mentioned decisions were confined expressly to importation during the year 1932. On September 24, 1934, a decision was rendered by the United States Customs Court in the case of Domestic Fuel Corp., et al, v. United States (Treasury Decision No. 47276). This case comprised seven protests, five submitted by the George E. Warren Corporation; one by the Domestic Fuel Corporation; and one by J. G. Hall and Co., covering importations of coal, coke, and briquets for the years 1933 and 1934. The question in each case was whether the assessment of the tax provided in section 601 of the Tariff Act was warranted, or whether the merchandise, imported during 1933 and 1934, should have been permitted entry free from such tax.

[blocks in formation]

The Customs Court held that coal and coke imported from Germany and Great Britain during the years 1933 and 1934 were entitled to entry free of the tax imposed by section 601 (c) (5) by reason of the exemptive provisions in subsection (a) of the same section and the most-favored-nation treaties in force between these countries and the United States. (George E. Warren Corp. v. United States, Treasury Decision No. 46455 cited).

The Court also held that briquets imported from Germany during the year 1933 were properly subject to the tax, no competent evidence having been offered to show either that briquets imported from any country during the year 1933 were admitted to entry free from the imposition of the tax under section 601 (c) (5), or that the balance of trade in such briquets between the United States and Germany during the year 1932 was favorable to Germany.

It is understood that an appeal will be made from the decision insofar as it applies to briquets on the ground that briquets should not be considered separately from coal and coke.

The decision of September 24, 1934, finally disposes of the question in respect of Great Britain and of Germany, except as to the importation of briquets from Germany, with the result that importers of coal and coke from these countries are exempt from the tax imposed by section 601 (c) (5) of the Tariff Act because of the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty of 1815 with Great Britain and in the treaty of 1923 with Germany, while such commodities are imported free of duty from other countries under the trade balance provisions of this section of the act.

Coal imported from Russia during the years 1933 and 1934 was held by the Court to have been properly subjected to the tax imposed by section 601 (c) (5), in view of the fact that the United States at the time of importation had no treaty relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia). (George E. Warren Corp. v. United States, Treasury Decision No. 46644 cited and followed).

FINANCE

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF COUNTERFEITING CURRENCY 8

Czechoslovakia-Irish Free State-Monaco-Portugal

The Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State by communications dated October 24 and 30 and November 12, 1934, that the Governments of Czechoslovakia, the Irish Free State, Monaco, and Portugal had notified him that they

8

See Bulletins No. 60, September 1934, p. 11, and No. 61, October 1934, p. 15.

had no objections to the reservation which the Polish Government, on behalf of the Free City of Danzig, desires to make in regard to its ratification of the convention for the suppression of counterfeiting currency, signed at Geneva April 20, 1929.

FISHERIES

CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING'

Great Britain

The following circular letter dated October 31, 1934, was received by the Secretary of State from the Secretary General of the League of Nations concerning the convention for the regulation of whaling:

"I have the honour to inform you that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, has forwarded to me the instrument of ratification by His Majesty the King, in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Geneva, September 24th, 1931.

"When transmitting to me this instrument, His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs declared, under the provisions of Article 20 of the Convention, that His Majesty does not assume any obligations in respect of any of His colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty or under mandate exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

"The said instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on October 18th, 1934.

"I beg to add that the above-mentioned Convention shall enter into force, in virtue of the provisions of its Article 17, ninety days after the receipt of the ratification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-i. e., on January 16th, 1935."

LABOR

CERTAIN CONVENTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE

Lithuania

By communications dated October 15 and 17, 1934, the Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State that the instruments of ratification by Lithuania of the following conventions adopted by the International Labor Conference were registered with the Secretariat on September 28, 1934:

Convention concerning equality of treatment for national and foreign workers as regards workmen's compensation for accidents;

Convention concerning the marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels.

See Bulletin No. 58, July 1934, p. 20.

NAVIGATION

INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINE CONVENTION 10

India

The British Ambassador at Washington informed the Secretary of State by a note dated November 14, 1934, that the instrument of ratification by India of the international load line convention signed at London July 5, 1930, was deposited with the British Government on October 1, 1934. The convention will become effective in respect of India on January 1, 1935.

POSTAL

UNIVERSAL POSTAL CONVENTION 11

Luxemburg

The Secretary of State received on November 26, 1934, an undated note from the Egyptian Minister at Washington stating that the Government of Luxemburg had advised the Egyptian Government by a note dated August 17, 1934, of its adherence to the universal postal convention signed at Cairo March 20, 1934.

Switzerland

The American Chargé d'Affaires ad interim at Bern reported by a despatch of November 8, 1934, that the Swiss Federal Council was authorized by a decree dated September 28, 1934, to ratify the universal postal convention and subsidiary agreements signed at Cairo March 20, 1934. The convention and the agreements will become effective for Switzerland on January 1, 1935.

United States

The American Minister to Egypt reported by a telegram dated November 7, 1934, that the instruments of ratification by the United States of the universal postal convention, the final protocol to the convention, the regulations for the execution of the convention, the air mail provisions, and the final protocol to the air mail provisions, signed at Cairo March 20, 1934, were deposited with the Egyptian Government on November 7, 1934. The ratifications are applicable to the United States of America and its insular possessions, compris ing Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United

10 See Bulletin No. 59, August 1934, p. 14. 11 See Bulletin No. 61, October 1934, p. 16.

States, and Samoa, and the Panama Canal Zone. The convention will become effective on January 1, 1935.

The United States did not sign the six subsidiary arrangements also adopted by the Tenth Universal Postal Congress, which are as follows:

Arrangement concerning declared values;
Arrangement concerning parcel post;

Arrangement concerning postal money orders;
Arrangement concerning postal checking accounts;
Arrangement concerning postal collection accounts;
Arrangement concerning subscriptions to newspapers.

PARCEL POST AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY

On November 13, 1934, the President approved and ratified the parcel post convention between the United States and Norway signed at Oslo October 6, 1934, and at Washington November 9, 1934. This convention abrogates that signed on March 30, 1929, and will take effect, and operations thereunder will begin, on a date to be mutually settled between the Postal Administrations of the two countries. The convention will remain in effect until 6 months after notice by either party of its intention to terminate it.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »