'Précis of the Affairs of the Persian Coast and Islands, 1854-1905 By J A Saldanha, BA LL B' [‎91r] (181/212)

^o|
169
Local embargo on a consignment of sheep by a British, firm at Bushire. igof.
629 A. In August 1905 difficulties were placed by the local authorities at
Secret E.,October 1905, No. 80. Bushire in the way of shipment to South
r r • t , Afiicaby Messrs. Cockbain Hemelryk and
Company of a consignment of sheep. It was suspected that the embargo was
placed with a view to compel payment of a bribe for its withdrawal in order to
enable shipment in time. Representations having been made to Tehran an order
Foreig^Office— 6 ^ ^ embar S c> - Sir A - Har di"ge suggested to the
_ ■'I believe the only way of putting a stop to the system bv which the local authorities
in this country put an embargo for the purposes of blackmail would be to enact that no
such embargo shall be allowed to be operative until it has been approved as necessary by
the Ministry of Customs. rr j j
629B. Lord Lansdowne having approved this proposal, Mr. Grant Duff
Secret E. ; December 1905, No. 348.
addressed the Mushir-ed-Dowleh on the
. . . ^subject on 21st September 1905, and was
promised that the proposal would be placed before the Shah for orders (8th
-October 1905). v
(xcii) Levy of excess export duties, 1882-87.
630. On 2nd May 1882 the Resident telegraphed to the British Minister
Political a„ June 1883, Nos. 101-103. t ^ e ^ ustom House official at Bushire
insisted on exacting an additional 5 per
cent, export duty on British goods which had already paid the full 5 per cent.
at Bandar Mashur and Bandar Rig. * ^
Mr. Rdnald Thomson telegraphed back on 12th May that the Persian Gov
ernment had given orders for immediate repayment of the export duty illegally
exacted at Bushire and to prevent recurrence of such demands. ' I
631. On 31st May 18S2 the Resident wired to the British Minister to say
Political a., July 1882, Nos. 144-50. ^ Goyeriw of Dilam stated that he
had received orders not to grant receipts
for duty levied on British goods; that at the same time he insisted on levying
the 5 per cent, duty on exports, the result being that British merchants were
subjected to an additional duty of 5 per cent, at Bushire.
632. In 1884 we find again complaints made about an attempt of the Persian I
authorities to levy dues on goods exported
A- ^ olH " e ' by British merchants in excess of the 5
[Ses Piecis in the latter collection.] per cent, customs duty stipulated by
treaty!
633. Colonel Ross telegraphed on 8th April 1884 to Her Majesty's
No. io„datedsth April 1884. Minister at Tehran, complaining that
orders had been issued by the Khans
of the minor grain-exporting ports in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. to levy export dutv ^
on grain under some other name, and to discontinue granting the receipts which
had hitherto been accepted in lieu of duty at Bushire. The gate-keeper at \
Bushire had received similar orders, and had already acted upon them. The \
orders came direct from Tehran, and were to the effect that the extra dues
were to be levied on the carriers of the goods and not on the merchants
themselves. Of course the buyers of the grain were bound in self-defence to
reimburse the carriers, who would otherwise have refused to convey their goods
in- future. Messrs. Muir & Co., British grain merchants, had presented
receipts for duty paid at the minor ports of Rig and Dilam, the recognition
of which had been refused by the Bushire customs authorities.
634. Mr. Thomson informed Colonel Ross by telegraph that the matter
. . o had been referred to the Persian Foreign
nth pni i 84. Office for settlement.
635. Mr. Thomson wrote to Colonel Ross explaining that the attempt to
oo exact double duties arose from the lately-
No. 8, dated 19th Apni 1 4. adopted system of farming the whole cus
toms of Persia to one person, who claimed that all customs hitherto paid at the
minor ports of Rig and Dilam to the local chiefs should be paid to him. This
S640FD