The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-02-23
DECIDES TO COLLECT
c0UhIERVI|un6 DUTI
Gage Is Preparing to
Tax Russian
Sugar.
NEW YORK CASE IN POINT
WILL NEUTRALIzE THE EFFECT
OF FOREIGN BOUNTY
PAYMENTS.
Action Will Have a, Strengthening
Effect On Sugar Prices and viii
Shut Out the Subsidized Product
of Other Countries.
From Stan Correspondent ].

I WASHINGTON. Feb. 9.-Secretary
Gage, understand. has practically de.
cided to resume the collection of the
countervailing duties upon Russian
sugar imported into the United States.
From New York this morning there
comes story ABOUT court decision
upon this very point there. The de
| spatch is as follows:
Judge Lacombe handed down a de-
cision yesterday in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals in the much
| discussed Sugar Cose,' of which the
legal title is the United States against
the Hills Bros. Co. He reversed the
! decision of the United States Circuit
| Court and affirmed that of the Board
of General Appraisers. which had up
held the action of the Collector of Gus
toms of the Port of New York in as
sessing . countervailing duty of 2.12
Dutch forms on certain sugar import
ed from the Netherlands.
Judge LGcombeis opinion is, in eff
feet. that the Netherlands act of Sept
1, 1897. respecting sugar production,
practically bestows cash bounty on
the expectation of sugar. Consequent
ly, the countervailing duty assessed
here was legal one, according to
section 5 of the United States tariff
act of 1891
The merchandise in question is
beet root sugar above 16 Dutch stand
ard in color and testing by the polar
iscope $3.50 degrees. 1t was imported
direct from the Netherlands, on or
about Oct 25. 1897.
The usual duty of LBS cents per
pound (under paragraph 209 of the
act of July a. 1897 was assessed on
the sugar in question, and also a coun-
tervaiiing duty. as before mentioned.
was assessed under section of the
act
Judge lacon,be's View.
I'm Judge Lacombe's opinion the
facts are fully set forth. He says, in
part:
The usual duty, under paragraph
209 of the act of July ~ 1897, was as
sessed on the sugar. and is not called
into question. In addition, there was
assessed a countervailing duty of 212
Dutch fiorins per 100 kilograms under
section of the said, act, which reads
as follows:
CCN - nat WhChCNSi any SouI
try. dependency. or colony shall pay
or bestow. directly or indirectly, any
bounty or grant upon the exporta-
tion of any article or merchandise
from such country, dependency or
colony. and such article or merchan-
disc is dutiable>under the provisions
of this act. then upon lne importation
of any such article or merchandise in
to the United States whether the same
shall be imported directly from the
country of production or otherwise. |
and whether such article or merchan-
disc is imported in the same condition |
as when exported from the country |
of production or has oeen changed |
in condition by remanufacture or 9TH |
erwise. there shall be levied and paid. |
in all such cases in addition to the du- |
ties otherwise imposed by this act. |
an additional duty equal to the net |
amount of such bounty or grant, how
ever the same be paid or bestowed.
The net amount of all such boun-
ties or grants shan be from time to /
time ascertained, determined and de-
clared by the Secretary of the Treas
ury. who shall make all needful regu-
lations for the identification of such /
articles and merchandise and for the
assessment and collection of such ad-
ditional duties.
Question Of the Bounty.
''The sole question in the case is
whether. under a certain law. which
went into effect in the Netherlands,
Sept l. 1897. and which contained reg
ulations respecting the production of +
sugar. the Government of that country
did. in fact, pay or bestow. directly or
Indirectly. q bounty OF grant upon the Il
expectation of sugar from that coun- /,
.ry. The importer makes no question
as to the amount of duty, or as to the
regularity of the action Of the Secre-
AIRY OF the Treasury. il it be held that
such bouaty is IN fact paid in the
Netherlands
The Circuit Court held that the
srnment is bounty upon production ,
ind not bounty upon he expectation
II the sugar, directly or indirectly In
his conclusion we are unable TO con-
.ur. Ii
Without quoting the precise text
Il the various provisions Of the Dutch
aw. it may be stated that it imposes I
N sugar tsuch as is here concerned)
vhether produced in or imported into I
holland. an excise tax Of 9s-D0 forms I
'er 10a kilos A so-cailed deduction. q
rhich cpncededly is bounty or grant {
4 premium Is paid for the production {
4 gaw sugar Of $50 norins per 100 | !
.iios. for the year Ia question. and for 1 4
be production Of refined sug1f there q