HC Deb 02 June 1938 vol 336 cc2388-403

10.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross)

I beg to Move, That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved. This and the following Order relate to pig iron and they are, in fact, one. If you will allow us to discuss them together, Sir, it may be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Speaker

If it is for the convenience of the House they may be discussed together.

Mr. Cross

In March last year the duty on foreign pig iron was removed. This step was taken to meet the increased demand arising from the industrial revival and rearmament. The United Kingdom output increased from 3,500,000 tons in 1932 to 7,750,000 tons in 1936, and yet the available supplies were insufficient to meet the needs of the United Kingdom steel industry. The imports of pig iron, which had been at a relatively low rate since 1932, increased last year to nearly 650,000 tons. At the same time, steps were taken to increase home production. A number of old blast furnaces were blown in and United Kingdom production rose to 8,500,000 tons.

When the supply of steel overtook demand the shortage disappeared even more quickly than it had arisen, but deliveries of pig iron which had been bought forward continued, and it became necessary to put a certain amount of pig iron into stock. Moreover, Continental countries which had suffered from the lessened demand, just as had our own industry, developed a tendency to dump in our markets, and there was also, inevitably, a falling-off in home production of pig iron. Although the output for the first quarter of this year was above that of 1937, the monthly output was falling below the high figures reached in the later months of last year. In those circumstances the question of re-imposing the duty asssumed importance, and the Import Duties Advisory Committee gave notice in March of an application for the removal of pig iron from the free list.

The effect of these two Orders is to remove pig iron from the free list and restore the duty of 33⅓J per cent. ad valorem which obtained before 4th March, 1937. This restored duty came into operation last month. There are certain exemptions of a minor character which remain on the free list, but none of them relates to pig iron which is made in any substantial quantities in this country. The Order merely restores the tariff position to where it was before the temporary suspension of the duty. According to the Advisory Committee, a continuation of imports would seriously embarrass the industry, and no serious objection to the restoration of the duty has been heard from any quarter.

The House will observe that very much fuller information is given in these recommendations than has been the practice in the past. Representations have been made from various parts of the House, and notably from the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) as to the amount of information contained in these recommendations being insufficient to enable Members to form a considered opinion. I want to tell the House that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have informed me that they propose to continue this practice of giving fuller information; but they do add that it can happen in some cases, particularly in some of the smaller industries, that the amount of public information available is scanty and that there is also some information on output which must necessarily be treated as confidential, having regard to the conditions respecting information relating to industrial firms which are laid down in the Import Duties Act and the Census of Production Act. Subject to those provisos the Import Duties Advisory Committee will continue the practice of giving fuller information.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

On this question I certainly do not want to resurrect the old fiscal controversy, after six years' experience of the tariff policy; not that I am prepared to accept that policy as the best of all policies, for if it has proved anything at all it has proved in this connection that it is almost useless to rely upon action of this kind. However, one or two questions are necessary, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to them later. We understand that last year 395,000 tons of pig iron were imported while the home production was somewhere round about 8,200,000 tons. What real effect could that 395,000 tons have upon home production or upon the price? When the duty is reimposed, where will the 395,000 tons of cheap pig iron go to, who will use it, and where will they dispose of the finished steel? That raises the question of what effect a duty of this kind is likely to have upon our export trade in steel, because last year, although we imported only 395,000 tons of pig iron, we increased our exports of steel by no less than £12,500,000. The mere imposition of a duty may solve one problem but may create several more in relation to employment.

When reimposing this duty, what control, beyond the so-called control of the tariff commission, will this House have over the finished price of steel? I assume that the commission have given us more information this time than has ever been given to this House before, but they tell us that they are satisfied that the finished price of steel is perfectly proper and that certain other prices are fixed by some interested parties. We are not satisfied that that ought to be the basis of determining our tariff administration. The fourth question is, What has become of the van Zeeland Report? I had better put this question to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Does it mean that that report is set on one side for all time and that the Government are going to depend upon this very easy system of imposing tariffs when a blast furnace closes down or a few men appear to be temporarily unem- ployed? It proves the ineffectiveness of tariffs as a permanent policy in a fast-changing and fast-moving world and the need for national ownership of some of our major industries, and co-operation between States for import and export regulation of major commodities.

We have had six years' experience. I know that many hon. Members opposite would say that the figures show that tariffs have proved a godsend to industry in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer that, as I expected they would. I know they could tell me that tariffs were put on in 1931, that we exported 29,000,000 tons of steel in 1933, 35,000,000 tons in 1934, 37,000,000 tons in 1935 and 36,000,000 tons in 1936. They would say that those figures were therefore conclusive of the success of the tariff policy. Of course, hon. Members opposite are ready to cheer that suggestion, but when I tell them that we took off the tariff last year and that our exports went up to 48,000,000 tons, what have the tariff reformers to say about that? It is clear that you can prove anything on the basis of these figures. They do pot prove that either tariffs or free trade is a lasting, permanent and final solution of the problem of import and export trade. The figures from 1932 to 1937 prove nothing except that there has been a fluctuating market throughout the world, both for pig iron and in the production, purchase and sale of steel.

The Minister's explanation is the explanation of the tariff commission, and I should have been surprised if he had attempted to put forward any other than the one he gave us. He told us that the price of imported pig iron had decreased to a point below what is called the cost of production in this country. There was a reduction in the number of blast furnaces in operation, and 93 men are now unemployed more than were unemployed several months ago. That being the case, the Government come along to the House and say: "What we want to do, in effect, is to stabilise the available supplies of a certain raw material so that we can stabilise the price of that material and stabilise the profits of those who produce it." In other words, the tariff policy the right hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] He can import the question of wages if he likes but that is the last thing that hon. Members really consider in connection with this matter. The House of Commons as a whole, including Members on these benches as well as Members opposite, are all now satisfied that, wherever we can stabilise the available supplies of a certain commodity and smooth out the ups and downs in industry, we ought to do it.

The hon. Member representing agriculture, after long years of painful suffering, has now come down to our policy of stabilisation but, whereas he and his friends want to stabilise available supplies of a commodity and stabilise the price and the profits of it, we adopt a different attitude altogether. What we think about the tariff business is this. We are imposing a tariff against whom? Apart from the Empire, our imports come from the United States, Belgium and France. In other words, duties are imposed against three friendly allied nations. We would not adopt that policy at all. First of all, if we had the power we should take over this major national industry, and if we found that we could produce sufficient quantities of a raw material, instead of the simple process of imposing duties we should enter into agreement with those friendly nations and ask them for the time being to withhold importing or attempting to import that commodity into this country. Every day on the Order Paper there are questions by Members opposite who complain that tariffs have not prevented imports. Tariffs do not in all circumstances keep out imports, whether the tariff is large or small. We are not going to vote against this Order, not because we feel that tariffs are the best policy or the policy which we ourselves should apply. We know after six years experience that small and large industries have entrenched themselves behind tariff walls and it is awfully difficult to know just where to stop. Therefore, as this is merely a reimposition of a tariff, and as the industry is still in private ownership, we do not see the wisdom of continuing the old fiscal Debate when we are going to get nothing out of it. We would rather take the view that the Government are entitled to have a wee bit more rope. Sooner or later the policy will condemn itself and the electors will come back to their old faith.

10.53 P.m.

Sir Percy Harris

I want to thank the Commissioners through the Board of Trade for their concession to the representations that I have made in more than one case, and in this case they have gone back to their former practice of giving us adequate information, particularly figures, to justify the recommendations they have made. In spite of the qualifications which the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on being responsible for the first time for piloting one of these Orders through the House, mentioned, I hope the Commissioners will continue to give us ample information as in this case. I cannot associate myself entirely with what the hon. Member has just said. I think that the result of the attempt of this country to follow the bad example now so common on the Continent of self-sufficiency is brought out by the information given to the House. It is clear that tariff barriers and economic self-sufficiency are not remedies for any of our economic problems.

In 1937, the total imports, in the 10 months in which there were no tariffs, only came to 650,000 tons, as against a United Kingdom production of 8,300,000 tons, which was the highest production figure of all. Now our home supply is in excess of demand, furnaces are being damped down, and a very serious position in the industry is threatened. That is just what is happening in almost every country. We are all trying to be independent of one another, and, as a result of modern methods, we are all having an excess of production. A great deal of the unrest throughout the world is due to this cause, and, until the world is persuaded to adopt other methods, we shall have these constant national gluts. The only remedy, as we have repeatedly said, is to follow the recommendation of the van Zeeland report and have further interchange of goods, to break down these tariff walls and stop the economic war.

In April, 1937, when there was no tariff, when the tariff had been done away with because of shortage of supplies, the average price of Continental imports was £5 8s. a ton, while the British price was £4 4s. a ton, which apparently was economically profitable to the producers. The Continental quotation has now fallen to £4 a ton, because of the slump everywhere in the demand for pig iron. At the present time the current price of Cleveland No. 3 is £5 9s. per ton, or very much more than it was in April of last year. Undoubtedly what is happening is that the Continent is trying to unload some of its surplus products at cut prices, and that is the case for this tariff, but our price now is £5 9s., which is very much above what it was in April, 1937, at a time when there was a large surplus of our own production quite independent of imports.

I am informed that the home industry is not disposed to lower the price; they would rather have a small production at high prices, even if it means closing down furnaces, than adopt the old-fashioned method of trying to stimulate demand by lowering prices. This is one of the inevitable consequences of our new dispensation. I think we have a right to say that, if the industry is to be freed from foreign competition, it should try to adjust its prices more to the natural state of demand. All experience in industry shows that, if you lower prices, you tend to stimulate demand. There was talk in the economic journals of the Government laying in an emergency stock of pig iron, very much on the lines of the Bill we were considering earlier to-day. I understand that that has been turned down. At the same time the powers that be, the monopoly in the iron and steel industry, have decided not to lower prices. I think we have a right to some guidance from the Department as to what pressure they are going to bring to bear on the trade to lower prices if the trade is to get this protection. The users are pointing out other directions in which, through the slump, prices, being subject to the ordinary rules of supply and demand, are falling.

Pig iron is one of the few commodities the price of which is being artificially maintained in this country, in spite of the excess of supply over demand. Incidentally, I would point out that from British India supplies are still pouring in, so that the Continental commodity is not such a very big factor in the price. While the Continent sent in 9,600 tons, British India sent in 25,500 tons, at an average price of £5. Fortunately for us, our tariff system does not work within the four corners of the British Empire, so that the actual monopoly is not quite complete. I am not going to try to force a Division. I have not enough Members on this bench to do that, and I cannot call on big battalions. All that I can do is to ask the Government to realise that pig iron is an important raw material, affecting a great number of industries, and if the Government are going to give this industry this comparatively small protection, they are entitled to demand that the monopoly in this country shall not artificially maintain the price at a high level.

11.2 p.m.

Commander Bower

I am only speaking at all to-night because, although I tried to speak on the Board of Trade Vote, owing to the fact that so many hon. Members opposite interested in the coal industry were not content to speak on the Ministry of Mines Vote, but had to take up a great deal of time on the Board of Trade Vote as well, many of us on this side who wished to speak then were not able to get in. The present situation in the iron industry is a great deal more serious than has been pointed out by other hon. Members, and it has arisen very suddenly indeed. This duty was only taken off a little more than a year ago, and apparently the present situation has arisen much to the surprise of the industry, and of the Iron and Steel Federation in particular. There is no doubt whatever that when the duty was first imposed, the industry derived an enormous benefit from it. From a depression amounting almost to despair in 1931, we rose to a peak output in 1937, when the highest number of furnaces in blast was 135 and the average was 124, and the industry then seemed all set for a considerable period of prosperity. Then what happened? In January, 1937, consultations took place between the Iron and Steel Federation and the Import Duties Advisory Committee concerning the cost of pig iron. I do not know what influence was brought to bear by the federation, but, at any rate, on 26th February the Import Duties Advisory Committee advised that pig iron should be added to the free list, and early in March this was put into effect.

Apparently the federation decided at that time that the shortage of pig iron and scrap was so likely, to become acute that it was essential that this duty should be taken off. At the same time they were pushing home production to the highest possible level, with the result that within a very few months not only were enormous quantities of foreign pig iron imported, but home production was going up to levels that had not hitherto been reached in this country. Then again, a sudden slackening of demand was coincident with the increased home production and the increased imports with the result that blast furnaces are being blown out all over the country like candles on a Christmas cake. Here are some remarkable figures. In 1935, pig iron production to the nearest 100,000 tons was 6,400,000 tons; in 1936, 7,700,000 tons; in 1937, 8,500,000 tons and in the first four months of 1938, it was at the rate of over 11,000,000 tons a year. If we look at the imports over the same period, we find that in 1935, they were only 128,000 tons; in 1936, 311,000 tons; in 1937, 722,000 tons and in the first four months of 1938 at the rate of 1,200,000 tons for the year.

These increases, in conjunction with the increased home production are absolutely staggering. When we add the imports of scrap for the four years under review, we find that they average about 750,000 tons a year. It appears to me that the British Iron and Steel Federation were extremely ill-advised at the time they did it, to press for the removal of this tariff. Again, I think that in reimposing the tariff now, the Government are some months too late because the furnaces are going out and a furnace cannot be put into commission at a moment's notice. If as many furnaces were put out of commission by enemy action in a war, we should come near to losing the war. It is a lamentable story. The stocks of pig iron are up to something over 1,000,000 tons at the present moment and even if we use those stocks, it seems to me that there should have been a little more foresight on the part of those responsible for running this great industry. The federation had not the entire support of the industry in their action and their action has been ill-advised. The part of the country which I represent has been very hard hit, and we feel that a little more foresight, a little more prevision in relation to the ebb and flow of production and demand should have been used in this case.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Stokes

I wish to call attention to a statement which I made not many days ago on the subject of pig iron costs which has not, as far as I know, been adequately answered by the Government. At the last meeting of the Pig Iron Association one of the biggest producers of pig iron was in favour of reducing the price by 10s. a ton, but, unfortunately, he was not in a majority, and he was ruled out. The main reason given was that the Steel Federation/in consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Committee, made representations that it would be exceedingly inconvenient if the price of pig iron were reduced at that stage, in view of the promise given that the price of steel should be maintained until 31st December, 1938.

Mr. Peat

Was the pig iron producer in question a producer of foundry pig iron?

Mr. Stokes

Yes. What I want to point out is that if the producers of pig iron are to have this preference, what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said is right—that the price of pig iron should be down to what is recognised as an economic level. This seriously affects our export trade. At the present time the price of pig iron in this country is 20 per cent. above American prices. It makes it extremely difficult for the producers of manufactured articles. The price of pig iron to-day is 55 per cent. above what it was in January, 1936. If it is contemplated that the Government should lay up a stock of pig iron at today's prices, I hope they will consider very seriously before taking such action, because it would be absolutely criminal; the price is far too high. I am now able to buy pig iron from Australia slightly cheaper than I can get it from this country.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Peat

I would like to point out, in connection with what has been said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), that the foundry pig iron makers are not at present affiliated to the Iron and Steel Federation, but are controlled, from the point of view of cost, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and their trade is recognised to be a special one, particularly in the export markets, which may require special treatment. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) criticised the action of the Iron and Steel Federation in buying pig iron in bulk. I have had the privilege of saying to this House before that it is most likely that that pig iron would have been purchased by the members individually if it had not been purchased by the industry as a whole. I admit that the purchases of pig iron have spread over, perhaps, some weeks longer than they should have done if we had been able to see ahead before we entered upon them. But I think the industry took a fairly national point of view, because the risks it took have rebounded upon its own head, as a result of the attempt it made to safeguard the nation's supply of steel at a time when it was not being met by the production of pig iron in this country. We are importing at present a certain amount of pig iron from India— 17,500 tons a month—and that is the only importation which is being made to-day under the bulk purchases and contracts made by the federation.

On the question of costs, I do not think the pig iron producers in this country have a great deal to complain about so far as they have gone. I think the prices of Continental producers who compete with us are practically on the same level as prices in this country. We are afraid that, with the recession of trade in foreign countries, we may be faced with imports of a dumped character which have no relation whatever to the cost of production, and I think that, in honesty and loyalty to all engaged in the industry, the Import Duties Advisory Committee were well advised to take action in view of the condition of affairs at that time. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has put forward his own point of view, which is essentially that of the true and unadulterated Liberal in this House, that the cost of production should vary entirely with supply and demand. That may react very unfavourably to a finishing industry, if it can buy raw material at a cost below that of production. The steel industry has been trying to get away from that. We have been prepared to buy at a cost on the level of the cost of production, and it has not hurt those employed in the industry or those who have money invested in it. That is a point which goes a long way towards stabilisation, which is what we are trying to do, from the point of view of those who have their money invested in it, and, more essentially, of those who have their employment invested in it, because they are the first people who suffer from a recession or a slump in trade.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seemed to echo to a certain extent the Debate that we had last week, in which the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) threw aspersions at the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The position is that that is an absolutely independent committee, and I believe that every Member of this House would admit that it is an independent committee.

Mr. T. Williams

I think that the hon. Member must admit that neither individually nor collectively did I reflect upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee as such. What I said, implied and meant was that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is not a sufficient body to be the determining power in fixing prices for any and every commodity in the country.

Mr. Peat

I would ask the hon. Member for Don Valley why it is not a satisfactory body to fix prices?

Mr. Williams

First, because they have no costings system and are dealing with so many other industries in the country that it is hopeless and impossible to get to the root of prices.

Mr. Peat

The hon. Member has slipped rather hopelessly into my hands, because they have a costings system, which is investigated by an independent accountant and on which they base all their decisions with regard to prices. A body of five or six, or four or five, or three or four men, if they are given the facts in each case, can decide.

Mr. Williams

Given the facts by whom?

Mr. Peat

By an independent accountant and the industry.

Mr. Williams

Is it not true that the industry itself supplies the Import Duties Advisory Committee and their costings department with the figures?

Mr. Peat

Who is to supply the figures? Is the hon. Member going to ask the manufacturers of boots to tell them the cost of supply?

Mr. Williams

Does not the hon. Gentleman see where he is getting to? He told the House who supplied the figures, and that the Commission act upon them.

Mr. Peat

I maintain that the only people who can supply the facts and figures are those who use and understand them, and that the" Import Duties Advisory Committee submit these facts and figures to the scrutiny of an impartial accountant. If that is not sufficient for the hon. Member for Don Valley, there is nothing in the administration of this great democracy in which we live which can possibly satisfy him.

Mr. Stokes

Does the hon. Gentleman admit that the only result of this joint investigation is that the price of steel today is 15 per cent. above the price of American steel?

Mr. Peat

I cannot answer that categorically, but it may very well be that the price of steel in this country is above the price of American steel delivered into this country. Probably the hon. Member knows better than I do that; the American steel industry is not using 30 per cent. of its production capacity and is seeking any avenue in which it can dump its products into any country of the world without any relation whatever to the cost of production.

Mr. Stokes

My price is the price in New York in the American market, and not the price delivered in England.

Mr. Peat

I am surprised to hear that the price of American steel in New York is lower than the price of steel in this country. I can only assume that it is still a case of dumping. I put it to the hon. Member that the cost of American steel at the present moment, delivered in New York, cannot be far away from the cost of steel in this country.

Mr. Stokes

American steel to-day is £10 5s. and English steel, £11 13s.

An Hon. Member

What is the cost of production?

Mr. Stokes

It is higher in America. Wages are higher.

Mr. Peat

I ought not to argue this point, because I am not in a position to state the facts as I should have liked. If the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) says that the price of steel in America is, in New York, lower than our cost in this country, I must accept it, but there must be some mitigating reason, because I have recently seen correspondence between tank builders in this country and tank builders in Chicago and Pittsburg, in which the Chicago and Pittsburg builders, quoting for the same contract— I think it was a contract in the Far East —were in a position to under-quote our own people very considerably. In the course of conversation they admitted that the reason for their price being so low was because they had to sell their products at any price anywhere.

Mr. Stokes

I submit to the hon. Member and to the House that the reason the cost of steel here is so much higher is the refusal to put iron down to a proper level.

Mr. Peat

I know the House is waiting to get on, and I do not wish to continue to argue with my hon. Friend, who is a prominent industrialist, and who is arguing on the same basis as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on supply and demand. If he can get his supply, he is prepared to squeeze the supplier until he gets his raw materials at a price which bears no relation whatever to the cost. When he has done that, he is satisfied, but in doing that he has sold his own position, because his consumer, the man who buys his products, eventually gets back on to the man who produces for him. Unless he is prepared to pay a decent price for the raw materials for his products he will start a system which will react upon his own head, as it has reacted time and time again on the heads of those who have acted in a similar way. As a typical employer of labour and a typical industrialist, I am not at all surprised to hear what he had to say.

May I, in conclusion, refer to one statement which was particularly unfair? That was the statement that our present arrangement for regulating operations was one which does not condone elasticity. The pig iron industry is a typical case. We found that we were unable to supply our own requirements in pig iron. There was an import duty on imported pig iron, and the industry asked the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider taking off that import duty, which they did. That put the country in a position to import all the pig iron it required for its steel manufacture and when we came to the end of that period and found that as a nation we could produce all the pig iron we required, we again went to that impartial body and asked it to reimpose the duty. That is a sign of great elasticity. It means that we are in a position to take it off when we do not want it and to put it on when we want it, that is when the employing people of this country require it. In those circumstances I should like to supp>ort, though it may be unnecessary, the reimposition of this duty.

11.24 P.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams

Will the House allow me three or four minutes to amplify what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) has said so excellently in answering the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The hon. Member for Don Valley disclaimed any intention of fanning into flame the embers of the tariff controversy, but in what he has said he has produced something closely akin to a conflagration. He argued that we were imposing a duty against three friendly allied countries. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) applauds that, but I did not hear the suggestion as an additional argument that as a consequence of these Orders the nations of Belgium, France and the United States are going to cease to be allied and friendly to ourselves. It used to be an argument against tariffs that they caused bad blood. I submit that tariffs do not by themselves produce bad relationships. Tariff barriers may follow bad relations, as indeed they did recently between ourselves and Ireland, but in isolation they certainly do not cause bad relationships.

The three friendly countries specified by the hon. Member for Don Valley seem to me a most admirable refutation of one of the most stubborn fallacies of free importers. These three countries are friendly to us for reasons which are wholly distinct from any fiscal or tariff controversy. The hon. Member for Don Valley managed to discover by some intellectual ingenuity that these Orders prove the inefficiency of the tariff system. They prove nothing of the kind. They prove what we who believe in moderate Protection have always contended, that a tariff system honestly and objectively worked, as It is by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, is a flexible and effective means of fostering our own industries. There is in our system no rigidity. It is far less rigid than was anticipated when it was introduced in 1932. If the few men to whom the hon. Member for the Don Valley referred are temporarily out of work, these tariff Orders may help to put them back. As one who represents a large industrial constituency, I contend that this is well worth doing, be it on a small or on a large scale. The case for these Orders, I think, is unanswerable, and I shall support them without cavil or criticism.

Resolved, That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 5) Order, 1938, dated the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

Forward to