'File 35/87 VI A. 38 Muscat reforms, customs, finances' [‎74r] (155/440)

u
month. This is ra+her high "but includes cost of remitting
duty collections to Muscat (M.o. • Comnission) (collection
1,1-^,518.', if- - 1,1-^3 leaving Rs.P^? for other e'l^enses) •
The total expenditure under contingencies at all ports
amounted to Rs*8,Bn2 in 1^24 cf• Rs«91,4^4 in a saving
of over and was made u.p as follo^st-
Arahian norts contingencies ^-,000
ft M bills 1,473
Gvfadur cont ingenc ie s 1,4:^0
8. bps
The pay and contingencies cf. dut Tr collections were as
follows
1023
Rs
1^24
Rs'
Receipts being duty less landinp;
charges ^,59,23? 7,69)1^4
Expenditure -pay and contingonciesl,10?OS? Ij00 ? 4l0
The proportaon of the cost of collection works out at
16.7/^ of the pmoimt collected in l n 25 and 13^ in l n 24
(vide diagram V). This ratio at first sight seems rather hirrh
but the rate of duty is relatively low (5^) and it woulr? cost
about the same to collect a l5f£ duty. Also there are many
outsorts each requiring seuarate permanent establishments.
A^T the larger ports it is necessary to emplo rr a staff
sufficient to cone with the work at all times and as the
work is spasmodic the men are very busy at times and have
little to do at other times. I do not therefore, consider
the cost of collection undllily high and do not recommend an3r
reduction of establishment.
It is worth mentioning that only 5% is taken from the
landing contrator to cover cost of collection®
■ 1
*>
I
f I
i
r r