BRITISH DUTIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20232, 16 February 1934, Page 7

BRITISH DUTIES.

Unfair Treatment From F ranee. RETALIATORY ACTION. British Official Wir^lesa. (Received February 16, 12.30 p.m) RUGBY, February 15. In the House of Commons the Hon Walter Runciman moved a motion to approve of the Import Duties Foreign Discrimination Order. Mr Runciman expressed regret that this course was necessary and traced the course of events for the last two years, which had led up to it. He recalled that in November. 1931, the French had applied 15 per cent of the surtax on British goods. In February, 1932, the surtax was removed from coal, but in a Bill of the same year the French import turnover tax was increased and that was also discriminating against British trade. At Lausanne the French and British Governments promised not to discriminate against each other. There were at that time two taxes whieh had been imposed upon British imports and which had to be paid by British traders, namely, the surtax and the turnover tax. Although Britain naturally objected in principle to receiving worse terms than any other nation, the objection was not on the ground of theory alone. Britain had most-fav-oured-nation rights with the French under the Convention of 1882 and expected those undertakings to be respected. But the surtax and turnover tax both operated against Britain very severely. He instanced the case of wireless apparatus, ’which was subject to a Customs duty of 22 per cent, exchange, compensation and surtax 15 per cent and import tax of 8i per cent, making altogether 45i per cent ad valorem. Although heavy this would have been borne with equanimity if the French had not granted Belgium relief which she had not granted to Britain. Belgian imports paid 24i per cent. The same figure applied to Italy. In the case of woollen and worsted tissue Britain was called upon to pay 3294 francs in taxes, and Belgium and Italy only 1686. He claimed that the British Government had been very patient, considering how their traders had suffered. They protested in August, 1932, and raised the matter on many subsequent occasions. Mr Runciman, in concluding, aaid that the duties imposed under the order were estimated to be as much in the aggregate as the amount of injury to British trade done by the French discriminatory order, namely, £500,000 a year. The British Government was prepared to open discusaions in regard to Anglo-French trade with particular reference to the French quota policy.