HC Deb 02 July 1917 vol 95 cc761-3
2. Mr. KILEY

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why Section 259 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1876, is relied on to throw on a claimant of goods seized by the Postal Censor the onus of proof as to goods being of non-enemy origin in the case of the import of diamonds from Holland if properly vouched by invoices or documentary identification, seeing the difficulty of deciding upon the origin of stones in the rough; and whether he will submit to Parliament proposals for the amend- ment of the law to safeguard the interests of British subjects and of our Allies whose goods have been or may be seized by the Postal Censor or others, and who, pending the War, are precluded by such difficulties of correspondence and travel from producing affirmative evidence of origin in English Courts of law?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of BLOCKADE (Mr. Leverton Harris)

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I presume that the hon. Member refers to Section 6 of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, which provides that where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have reason to suspect that the country of origin of any goods imported into the United Kingdom is an enemy country the goods may be seized, and in any proceedings for the forfeiture or condemnation thereof the country of origin of such goods shall be deemed to be such an enemy country unless the contrary is proved. I see no reason for any alteration in this provision.

3. Mr. KILEY

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in making a selection and appointment of the persons to serve as members of the Diamond Import and Export Committees, any assurances were given to the Government or any inquiries made as to the special expert knowledge possessed by the persons proposed to be appointed whereby, apart from invoices or other documentary evidence of identification, they were able to determine the place of origin of stones in the rough, and in particular whether the same are of enemy origin?

Mr. HARRIS

Before the examiners of diamonds imported into this country and the Diamond Export Committee were appointed, His Majesty's Government were satisfied that their expert knowledge of diamond trade was such as to fit them for the duties they perform.

4. Mr. KILEY

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, except as to certain yellow diamonds from German South-West Africa, distinguishable by colour, it is not possible to determine whether stones in the rough are of enemy origin or not, and that the former test of stones cut by Belgian workmen employing the Antwerp cut are no longer distinguishable from stones cut by Dutchmen using the Amsterdam cut, by reason of the fact that at the outbreak of the War numbers of Belgian workmen employing the Antwerp cut emigrated to Holland, and many others to this country, where they have since pursued, and continue to pursue, their calling as diamond cutters, and rendered the former test unreliable and unsatisfactory, he will, now discontinue it as a justification for the seizure and condemnation of stones imported from Holland?

Mr. HARRIS

It is always open to the owners of goods seized to dispute such seizure when proceedings for condemnation will follow. In such proceedings the experts' views as to the origin of the diamonds in question form a part only of the evidence laid before the Court, and the defence are, of course, at liberty to bring forward expert or other evidence to rebut such views if they think fit.