MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the instruction he has communicated to the Government of India with regard to its dealings with sugar; was that instruction due to any, and, if so, what, decision of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission; what were the arrangements which that instruction obliged the Indian Government to cancel at short notice; did their cancellation affect the levy by that Government of countervailing duties on all imports of sugar profiting by direct or indirect bounties in the country of production; and will he lay the terms of the instruction upon the Table of this House; do His Majesty's Government hold that they are under an obligation to impose upon the Indian Government, either by an instruction such as that in question or by any other method, decisions of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission.
§ MR. BRODRICKIn November last the Government of India was instructed that, in respect of sugar coming from a country which in accordance with the Brussels Convention had reduced its surtax within the permissible limit, they should confine the duty countervailing the former excessive surtax to sugar produced before the surtax had been reduced, and should exempt sugar of the 1903–4 crop. (2). This decision was 140 taken after consulting the Law Officers and was not based on any finding of the Permanent Commission, but on the obligation of the Government of India to take off a countervailing duty when the bounty countervailed ceased to be operative. (3). The Government of India accordingly notified that instead of levying the special duties in question on all sugars up to 31st March, 1904, they would exempt new - crop sugars under certificate. (4). The sugar thus exempted could not be held to have profited by the bounty created by an excessive surtax. The decision does not affect the right of the Indian Government, to levy countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar. (5). I do not propose to lay any Papers. (6). The answer to the last clause of the Question is in the negative.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESHow does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the apparent contradiction in his answer? First he says that his instruction to the Indian Government was based on the decision of the Permanent Commission, and later on he said it had nothing to do with it.
§ MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that the Indian Government were represented at the Brussels Convention and agreed to certain provisions, but it was not represented on the Permanent Commission.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESThe Indian Government has refused to be bound by the Convention, and nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman is imposing the decision of the Permanent Commission on it.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)Is it not the fact that the Indian Government has refused to be bound by the decision of the Convention, and will the Government respect that determination.
§ MR. BRODRICKThat affects the future and not the past.